Sorry, I don't have much in the way of suggestions for you on the little artifact bits. I had a little bit of that the first time I printed one but it cleared up when I printed it again. Maybe set a pause in the code and manually clean the nozzle? I only really did layer-based multiple filaments when I had my Prusa, sorry I can't be of more help!

I'll give it another try, maybe with a cleaning in between. Seems like that should work.

I do multi color prints on my prusa and I have never had this issue. I haven't looked at the STL but you need all of the black elements to be on higher layers than the white. If any black element is on the same layer as the white you are going to get a result like in your picture. Based on the picture alone it looks like there was one more white layer put down after printing the rays coming out of the saucer.

Also when I do the filament change and it asks me if the color is clean yet I always say no at least once so it fully purges the nozzle. If I'm going from a dark color to a light one I will do it more than once to be really sure it's purged.

To circle back to the tpu in the ams thing... I finished running that big order with no jams or issues (other than still a bit of hair that needs cleaned from the prints)... The priline tpu seems to work fine for single color prints through the ams. Certainly easier to throw it in the ams than get it hooked up manually (all 3 of my p1s are close side by side so it's a pain.)

Got a Prusa XL 5 Head coming shortly, may try my hand at some mods for pinball! Haven't done that yet so should be an adventure!

I made this heart for my Class of 1812 as a fun project to see if I could pull it off. I'm wondering if anyone knows how I can make the flat face rounded like a cartoonish heart would look rather than being flat. Is there a tool in fusion that would do that or would I have to design it differently from the get go?
pasted_image (resized).png

Pretty straightforward in Fusion using the Fillet tool, if I understand what you're trying to do. I've done something very similar on previous designs. Using the fillet tool, you'd have to decide how to handle the cutout area below the tip of the heart. Ultimately, you'd need to sort out that part regardless if you want to round the top face.

I could be doing it wrong but fillet definitely helps round it off and make it look better but it doesn't seem to be able to get the entire face to buldge out like you'd see on a cartoony, 3d heart.
pasted_image (resized).png

Ah, I don't know that we were understanding that request. Basically, you want to make it look puffed up like a pillow?

Yeah exactly! That's a better way of describing it.

I think you have to use a mesh to do it. I'm about a 1 on a 10 point scale with Fusion 360, so can't really help you. Found this video that might get you started.

I would try the Loft feature

Anony pretty easy using Loft, if you have space in front of the front/top surface of the heart. Doing it with the cutout behind could be problematic. Check message 6 here at Autodesk support forum. Should be pretty quick if you have the space:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-design-validate/need-help-how-to-make-a-bubble-heart/td-p/8552862

If you don't have space on top/front, this all gets a lot tricker.

I picked up a Revopoint 3D scanner and it's been a game-changer for me. I'm strong in Fusion 360 but when it came to sculpting meshes I was clueless. Much easier to start from a complex mesh and clean it up to your liking in MeshMixer.

https://www.revopoint3d.com/inspire-3d-scanner/

pasted_image (resized).png

So how much "clean up" is there? That turned out really good, maybe better printed at like a .12 or .16, but good.
I've always wanted to try one of these, but the price point was always scary. I mean it still is, but your result looks great.

Ok, I made a couple more keychains. These two are a bit more interesting from a technical standpoint.

WoZ, used a .2mm nozzle and printed upside down on the bed. Amazingly the Amoled sparkle filament worked even in the small nozzle. I used a different, lightly glittered midnight green for the background, but it doesn’t look like it has any sparkle at all. Good news was neither clogged the nozzle.

GZ was tricky, and frankly looks better in the photo. The yellow I’m using (Inland PLA) is so translucent that some of the black is still visible even with .6mm of solid layers on top.

IMG_1293 (resized).jpeg

How did you get the gradient look on that GZ? That’s awesome.

It will vary depending on what your scanning. Processing triangles can get very daunting. While it can go to .05mm accuracy, your mileage will vary with what kind of details it will pick up. Most of the stuff I've scanned has been fairly small and I'm very satisfied with the performance. Larger pieces also work pretty well.

Yeah, that was the tricky bit. Basically each letter is split into a ramp. The "orange" ramp starts thick at the base of the letters and gets thinner towards the top. The "yellow" ramp is starts thick at the top of each letter, getting thicker towards the base.

Here's an exploded view of the letter 'O' to show the ramp.

Screenshot 2023-10-27 at 8.29.42?PM (resized).png

Brilliant!

I'm jealous, saw that in a video last night and it looks awesome.

Brilliant! I’m gonna try that. I have a clear and few trans fluorescent that might work. So cool.

hue forge is pretty cool.

Made this a while back when it first came out as a test.

IMG_0439 (resized).jpg

Would you be willing to share the MM keychain file? It looks awesome. My MM didn't have a keychain when I bought it

Since all the images I based the keychains on are copyrighted by, I don’t plan on releasing the files. (It’s also why I don’t plan on selling any of these). But I printed multiple of each since that made the purged filament “less” wasteful. Message me directly, and I’ll send one out.

It appears that retraction was my issue for the hairy TPU prints, I added .2mm of additional retraction and it seems to have solved it.

So after years of 3d printing. (2x ender3s, both heavily modded, and a Qidi Xmax). I finally but the bullet on an X1C/AMS.....

......good god I don't know what to do with myself.

The speed.
The filament just always being loaded up.
The never bed leveling.
Never having to use a brim for day-to-day prints.

I'm just amazed. I can't wait to play with nylon and PC

Yea my last batch of printers was ender 5's. Even if you take away the speed and auto leveling, the print quality is night and day difference. Both in surface quality and strength. I honestly think a part printed at 25% infill on a bambu is stronger than a part printed at 100% infill on the enders. The temps are pretty much the same, and yes I've adjusted my extruding speed on ender to make sure it's extruding the right amount of filament but it's never really improved.

Just over the weekend I got a fairly large print job, would have taken me easily a week to print (between failed prints and not trusting it to print overnight). I got all my parts printed in a day and shipped the parts out. Never had turnaround time like that ever.

Congrats! I came skeptically from a Prusa and was blown away. I remain surprised at the speed and quality. My stuff is all onesie-twosie work and prototyping but the speed makes the process much different for me. So good!

THE only real difference between P1S and the X1 is the screen and the lidarr. P1S doesn't come with Hardened gears/hot end for abrasives but they can be added.

I don't have enough enough experience to tell if lidarr is worth it or not yet but all my prints have been flawless. The screen is nice, but I don't know if it's worth the premium when most of my prints have been sent remotely. I know how to level the bed, adjust flow, all the ender 3 skills, but I haven't had to do ANYTHING with this thing at all.

The AMS I highly recommend. Multicolor prints waste a lot and take a shit ton of time if there's a lot of layer changes, but I can't begin to tell you how nice it is have four filaments loaded up. There's no having to go change filament even. Also if you have two of the same material and one roll runs out, it will fail over to the next roll! I don't know if it's worth $350 on its own, but as the combo it 100% is.

As long as the bed is clear I don't even have to walk up to the printer until it's done. Slice, send to the printer, come back a few hours later to an almost perfect print.

The x1c has a considerably more powerful processor as I understand it... I love my p1s units.

Go here to learn about Multicolor prints and flushing filament reduction. It's worth the read.

https://www.printables.com/model/582382-bambulab-profile-for-up-to-60-purge-reduction

Sorry if this is off topic but I think the people in this thread are the type who would appreciate this the most since we understand precision manufacturing/machining.

For the last year or so there has been an effort to do high quality metrological scans of several granite vases from dynastic Egypt. The results have been completely mind blowing.

Several of the scans can be found here including STLs if you want to 3d print them.

https://unchartedx.com/site/vase-scan-resources/

Someone also did a mathematical analysis of one of the scans and showed that the relative accuracy of the surfaces was within 75 thousandths of a millimeter when compared to a purely mathematical model of the vase. This implies that these had to be designed with a computer and machined with precision manufacturing tools. They are made of granite too which is a very hard to work with substance due to the hardness and the lack of homogeneity.

"This led us to attempting something, that really should not have been possible, when dealing with a supposedly ancient artefact, made from granite, of all things: We decided to experimentally build a CAD model that would exclusively use mathematical concepts to dimension and place the features of the object, and use no tuning or arbitrary positional adjustments. All features should be placed and dimensioned by interrelation to each other.

We also limited the initial margin-of-error tolerance of the model to 75 μm

, in terms of how well it should map to the features of the actual object. This margin-of-error tolerance was, amongst other criteria, used to discern whether an attempted modelling of a particular feature should be considered for inclusion in the model, or rejected.

I find it timely to stress how completely ludicrous this actually is. We are dealing with a stone vessel of supposed ancient origin, and are now proposing, that a purely mathematical CAD model, should somehow map to the actual object within a tolerance of less than 75 thousands of a millimeter.

Here, at least 15 levels of interrelation exists, and they are all precisely in harmony, down to microscopic scales.

This object was meticulously and carefully designed by a human being, with incredible levels of skill, insight and artistry. Of that, there can currently be no doubt."

That analysis can be found here.

https://unsigned.io/articles/2023_03_17_Abstractions_Set_In_Granite.html

The handles are another peculiarity. If these were made on a spinning lathe they'd have to somehow create the handles after and to keep the precision to the level we see would make that incredibly difficult. It's as if they were using a multi-axis lathe.

The only real way to refute this analysis is to say they are not genuine artifacts, but modern fakes. Even if they were modern fakes to make them in granite with such a level of precision would make the cost far outweigh any price you could fetch for them. It's really mind blowing how precise these things are!

EDITed to add the video showing their scanning process and some of the crazy tolerances these vases achieved

So from a long time 3D printer that has had so many different brand machines. I went with the P1P and AMS for simplicity. We have 4 machines and 7 AMS at this point. Do they have issues, yes. Are they pretty easy to fix, yes. We run then almost 24hrs a day and we have had them for 9 months now. I have only made 2 claim tickets for AMS first stage feeder issues.

As someone who switched to crapple from Android thinking the LiDar would be a cool feature on a phone (it's not) to then seeing the X1C with LiDar, I skipped it. From what I saw in the beginning it was a gimmick that only works some of the time. Now maybe over the last 6 months or so it has improved, but I can not attest to that. I do know that the pinout connectors on the X1C are trash and become de-soldered quite often as I see posts in the Facepage group. The P1P have really nice easy press connectors. You can also buy a hardened extruder set for the more abrasives stuff for like 20 bucks.

Join the Facepage (super dysfunctional and probably the worst group I've ever been in, but informative) and read up. Then make a decision.
The machines are so awesome and just work!

2 absolutely truthful statements here

I serously love this type of thing and soak it up:

9083f64b.gif

Me too, I just can't believe this kind of analysis hasn't been done on these before. Apparently over 40,000 of these vases were found and most are just sitting in some warehouse. This should be front page news! It's not possible to achieve that level of precision by hand and according to Egyptology/Academia the people who made these did not know about the wheel and only had access to bronze and stone tools. It's simply not possible with those tools.

So my takeaway from this should be what version of conspiracy...aliens, previous civilization beyond our capabilities that is undiscovered thus-far...I'm trying to understand what's being implied

I don't think you can draw any conclusions like that simply from the analysis of the vases alone. The only thing we know is that they are very old, minimum 4,000 years and possibly 10,000 or greater based on dating the organic material that was in the tombs they were found in.

The problem with dating them is that there's no way to know if they were created during the lifetime of the person they were buried with or if they were buried with them because they were already ancient relics that were highly valued. Just like if I were buried with one today that doesn't mean it comes from the 2000's.

The only thing we can be certain of is that whoever created these had much better technology than we give them credit for.

If you want to go down this rabbit hole there are other variables that start to paint a picture, although everything is still highly speculative.
One interesting data point is the fact that the oldest stoneworks we find are typically the highest in quality. You see a pattern in many ancient sites where there is more than one building style present and it's always the case that the oldest structures show the best workmanship. The sites are re-used and re-built over generations and the new stuff that is built on top is much more crude and doesn't use megalithic blocks like the foundation does.

You see a similar thing with these vases. There are crude vases that were made in the post-dynastic era that have speckles painted on them as if the creators were trying to mimic the granite and diorite vases they had found. These have obvious tool marks or are made out of pottery in an attempt to mimic the highly accurate vases and they never come close to matching the quality of the ones that are being analyzed.

Combine this with the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis and the dozens of ancient myths about people showing up 10-12,000 years ago and teaching humanity skills like agriculture and animal husbandry and it paints a picture that there may have been a more advanced civilization that was nearly wiped out in a massive, catastrophic event. It would explain why there are sites like Gobekli Tepi which have been dated to 10,000 BC and which show far more advanced planning and building than we know was possible in more recent times. The knowledge was lost over time for some reason.

I'll add that if they existed I don't think they had computers and the type of advanced technology we have today but they were certainly far more advanced than we think was possible back then. The vases are undeniable proof of that if you are familiar with what it takes to manufacture something within a tolerance of 2/1000ths of an inch.

I'll shut up now though, I've derailed this thread enough. I just can't believe how amazing the vases are and needed to share with the type of people who can appreciate what it takes to manufacture at those levels of precision.

This is a pretty big leap in logic - similar to the out there hypotheses that lead people to think the Egyptians had some kind of alien technology or something. YES we are dumber at math now than they were then, and we underestimate what was possible at the time with the tools available. Bronze and stone tools are still pretty good at cutting stuff with precision. Although I must say I agree with a lot of your follow up post.

Could you guys take this to an aliens/conspiracy thread or PMs please?

Does anyone have any good ABS specif test prints they like?

Just download one of the STL files of the jars being discussed. See how easily I brought the conversation back on topic.

https://unchartedx.com/site/vase-scan-resources/

Has anyone heard any more rumors or gossip about a new printer or revised printer from Bambu coming soon? I need another unit.

I find most of my abs prints to be kind of brittle... Not sure what's going on with that but I don't use it much at all anyway, so haven't spent the time to figure it out.

Likely poor layer adhesion. With ABS it's a balance between cooling and layer adhesion in my experience.

Could be. They look really good, just easy to break. I haven't done much with it at all though

They only JUST came out with the A1 like a month ago. Prusa mini sized cantilever bedslinger with a reduced function AMS.

I saw an interview where they don't seem too keen on a larger bed P1/X1 model :/

Well they dropped that x1e as well after the a1 thing... Pretty well unannounced, so I just wondered if anyone knew something....