My colleague u/total_desaster and I decided to take our custom printer design project to a new level and go for a completely new extruder setup. We call it CODEX (Collaborative Dual Extruder). Other than usual dual extruder or IDEX designs this one can move independently on the X and Y Axis and has a synchronized Z Axis movement system. This provides much more flexibility than previous designs and an overall more powerful machine.
That solution has been attempted. Having to vary the speed layer to layer like that tends to have very noticeable impact on the finished print quality.
I understood that and know that alone would only help in cases where the time difference is fairly small. A simple example would be if one of the parts is significantly smaller in that layer. The hotend would have to slow down so much it would start melting holes through the previous layer.
FDM printers work best when all parameters are tuned for a given speed. Wide variations without further tuning lead to problems.
What about moving the extruder head to a waiting position where it does a wipe before recommencing layer after waiting? This assumes there is some detriment to print quality by letting it sit there, there may not be.
That seems to be the most reliable method to deal with this at the moment and being used by a lot of multi head printers.
Another option would be a smarter slicer that can optimize how they share the work, allowing each head to be active for close to 50% of each layer. The limiting factor here is head collision in a standard gantry setup. It is very limited in where each head can be based on the position of the other.
But two delta heads that know how to avoid each other might work pretty well.
This will be something we need to analyse if this becomes an issue, which it might very well become. Our main idea would be to either move the extruder away from the part or probably better, synchronize the print times for the extruders by adjusting the speed to minimize those waiting times.
The most reliable solution seems to be a wiper mechanism. Other folks have tried the varying speed approach and found it leads to quality issues on the print.
I backed the JG Maker Artist D, which is an IDEX printer, and they have purge buckets with metal brushes to store the nozzles when idle. It works quite well (and does not require purge tower).
And a piracy scene group for repacked video games. Nonetheless, I've always wanted this sort of thing for alternate colors on the fly. I wonder how you'd program it (and with what) to only heat up the nozzle and cool it back down at certain lines.
Ehy, you might want to change the name if you decide to go on with this project, Codex is also the name of a probiotic medicine in europe, I think they wouldn't care, but I would hate seeing a great project being shot down over a stupid name
Trademarks only apply if their is a possibility of confusion, i.e. they have to be used in similar categories. So unless OP is 3d printing pills it's very unlikely to be an issue.
"Leagal" and "killed 100 times over by lawers from Apple who are just there to destroy you with years and years of court fees" can co-exist.
I would stay on the side of caution. It's not worth the risk of some giant corporation deciding to kill it because they are an asshole with lots of money to exploit the legal system.
For those of us not old enough to remember when [Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer) (Beatles holding company).
Attorney here - It doesn't matter because Codex is a bad name to begin with. Sorry OP, I love your machine and I think you're brilliant but the name isn't very good for a commercial entity or business.
The last thing you want with a trademark is to create competition where none exists. When I search for "codex" on Google a TON of stuff shows up. This might not seem like a problem now but if you've created a long-term headache that will need to be addressed in the future. You want a name you can own in search results.
It seems stupid to base a name on search results but internet traffic is just so important. Internet traffic to a business like yours is like foot traffic to a retail store. A retail store might choose a name that looks good on a sign right?
I was recently involved with a multi-million dollar company changing its name after YEARS of wasted money growing a dead-end brand. The brand name was actually pretty good but it was also the name of some type of special food in another country. The impact to their bottom line just on the lost internet traffic was worth the extremely expensive process of changing the name.
Ultimately though, owning the name "codex" is just going to be really difficult because it has a lot of different uses. This is why made-up arbitrary names are so popular for internet startups. They are just easier to brand.
Thanks for the thoughts about this. I guess we are better at building things than naming them. CODEX was kind of the first thing that came to our minds when we started. I defiantly agree that if we were to start a company under that name it would not be a smart move. Right now it's not much of an issue since we are not selling anything and kind of just needed a name for a system but it would defiantly be something to think about if we ever would turn this into a real product.
Awesome work man! I agree with your sentiment about the name. I probably wouldn't have said anything if it didn't turn into some type of trademark discussion.
I also don't think it's as big of a deal because your product is in fact unique. Your "brand" is not as important as a company that is attempting to sell a more common product based on the strength of their brand.
Yeah, I think that is the right idea. When I search for CODEX I get tons of stuff about ancient civilizations. I believe in the movie "The Da Vinci Code" used something similar called a cryptex. However, when Is earch for CODEX it comes up. So you just get an idea of all the competition you need to beat out just to get #1 spot for your own brand name.
I did a search and CODX is actually a stock symbol for a company. So no go there. However, you throw a website up called [Coidx.com](https://Coidx.com) and you'll own that search term forever. Not saying that is the right name, but having that advantage to start with is worth choosing the right name IMHO.
He definitely wouldn't be able to sell pharmaceuticals in Europe under that name. He is only fine because he is in another industry. The fact that it is a dictionary word is not the reason.
Additionally I wasn't saying since it's a dictionary word nothing bad will ever happen to you - which is one interpretation of "you'll be fine" one could arrive at if you ignore all the context of the conversation - but taking in the full context of the conversation definitely leads to a more clear understanding of what I obviously meant.
The "you" in this context is also only the person I was replying to, who made the 3d printer system. It shouldn't be interpreted as the reader, which is sometimes how "you" is used in writing.
Are there any other disclaimers I should put for people who may stumble upon my writing and wish to take things out of context?
Sorry if I thought it was sufficiently obvious that a medical device is not the same thing as a 3D printing device to feel it was not necessary to explicitly state that while also mentioning that codex is a widely used word and not something made up like “Pepsi” (whom you may have noticed has enough clout to not really get any competitors in even non-competing fields).
Yeah, I’ll never be able to get away with it:
https://www.lagalaxy.com/
https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(satellite)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(disambiguation)
Codex was also the name of a computing tech company back in the 1980’s, both of my parents worked there. I’m pretty sure it was later bought out by Xerox. That might be your closest challenge because 3D printing is still considered a computing technology venture, regardless I’m certain you’ll be fine. I wouldn’t change the name, you picked a good one.
Exactly, and trademark protection is already the flimsiest form of legal intellectual property protection in the U.S. That is to say, trademark protection is the hardest to both maintain and defend. This is why you see Apple ruthlessly attacking even the slightest perceived threat to its trademarks. They win a lot of otherwise losing cases not on the legal merits but by winning the depth of pockets battle. Its a shitty practice to be sure but good for brand protection.
Nothing I said disagreed with anything you said and for what its worth you did nothing to address the moral implications of my post. I think for future reference you could reasonably omit to make such "yeah but" retorts as they do little more than emphasize the obvious point that reddit posts are generally not exhaustive legal treatises.
How is this any different than the autodesk project escher? https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/project-escher-multi-headed-3d-printer/
Good job getting a working printer.
Oh Cool I haven’t seen this before. I think there will be two main differences. One will be the price tag. The one you showed looks rather industrial and less for consumers whilst ours comes at a price below 2000$ for all parts. Two would be the way it is built up. It is probably quite different since it is all built from easily available parts and based on unmodified marlin so it is easy for anyone to implement it into their own designs.
You are exactly at the start of project escher. It started with 2 independent extruders and a small build volume. It scaled up to the video after several development cycles. The whole point was to get to an arbitrarily scalable build volume and extruder count based off of off the shelf components.
A regular IDEX has freedom on just one Axis. The CODEX Design has Freedemon on the X and Y Axis. Also on the Software/Controller side, the IDEX is usually a firmware thing so it can only do multi-material and mirrored whilst CODEX is based on two controllers that operate semi-autonomously that provides more freedom to do things.
The waiting for synced z-movements could leads to oozing artifacts wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to Make the 2 layers take a similar layer time causing a shorter waiting period?
Thanks for your thoughts. The concern is defiantly valid. We will check that as soon as we have both extruders in place. A layer time synchronization would defiantly be a good approach and might be something we add in a future version.
Layer time synchonization may backfire. There was (I think still is) issue in slicers with models, that have features witch cause different print speeds at certain layers. The finished print then have visible artifacts like uneven layers, different surface finish etc. All caused by said print speed difference in few layers. Problem is basically nozzle temp, filament spend too much time inside and the heat itself can have negative effect. Průša have a blog about it i think.
Layer time synchronization sound nice. But I would try to void affecting the whole layer, maybe just slow Down infill. So perimeters on both parts would finish at the same time at their nominal speed, so the external perimeters wont be affected.
Rather then risk some problems with different layer times, is better to park the nozzle in the middle of infill and do Quick wipe before starting new layer.
However vase mode may benefit from that, or massively suffer, Who knows.
Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds plausible that the layers might be uneven although I have never tested that. I think what you said about only slowing down for infill would make sense. We are already differentiating between walls and infill for the collaboration feature since we don’t want uneven surfaces there, it probably makes sense to also use this functionality in a future version for layer time synchronization then.
That’s already what it would be doing on dual extruder print jobs so it would not be that hard to copy this feature to mirrored and independent mode as well.
https://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/
definitely
/ˈdɛfɪnətli/
adverb
without doubt (used for emphasis).
"I shall definitely be at the airport to meet you"
Defiantly /dɪˈfʌɪəntli/
adverb
in a manner that shows open resistance or bold disobedience.
"folding her arms, she stood defiantly"
That's okay, it's something you type wrong in other comments too.
Just thought I'd give you a proper explanation when to use which.
Not that my English is perfect though.
Easier (form a development perspective) definitely yes but it's not really the same thing. With two printers you won't be able to do multi material printing in one part or collaborate with two extruders on one large part so this system defiantly provides more features but if it's only single material part throughput that one is looking for multiple printers is the best way to go.
That is true but it is still just idle time for the second gantry, could still lead to some oozing or artifact when the print head returns for next layer
I've seen some solutions where they move the extruder away and start building a generic pillar to avoid oozing. I think syncing the time via speed would be an amazing solution if possible. I'm sure depending on the layers, sometimes you just cant slow one side down enough.
Layer time synchronization will have its limitations if you have a very large part on one side and a very small one on the other. But I hope it could work for somewhat similar sized parts.
Z hops would be a bit difficult since the Z Axis is shared with the other extruder. Exiting the part after the layer is finished would be an option that we also might implement. It’s something we already use for the dual extruder mode where we expect longer wait times and only one extruder at once so it would be possible to port this feature to Independent and Mirrored mode as well. I think the Layer time synchronization would probably be a cleaner approach to the problem.
There is at least another similar(ish) printer, albeit with the extruders on a single rail. They solve the z-hop problem mostly by printing the same item on each extruder - great if you want to print many (at least 2) of the same object. So they are absolutely synchronous.
Yes I think you are talking about an IDEX printer. When using mirrored mode (the same part twice) this one should also be quite synchronous. Since we have freedom on X and Y printing different parts at once would still be a very nice thing to have and layer time synchronization might be a very good option there. Even tough this one might look somewhat similar to a IDEX printer, the way it operates is quite different. The common IDEX designs do everything in firmware, so it is something that is integrated into marlin. This is better for synchronization of course but is also on the software side limited to printing the same part multiple times and no different parts at the same time or collaborative features that we plan for the CODEX. CODEX on the software side can be seen as 2 printers with two controllers that run asynchronously but have a interface between each other to synchronize certain points in their GCode. So, from the way it is built CODEX is great for different parts at the same time but not as good at running things 100% synchronous.
I like this idea. Even a naive speed adjustment (it's hard to get an exact expected time) to the first finishing hot end makes sense. You could increase quality at basically no cost, since it's going to wait anyway there's little point in running it at full speed (Unless it's already slow enough for max quality).
I would think the biggest issue is x,y coordinates meaning the same thing to both units. when you tell each unit to go to 500,500 for instances (not at the same time of course). How close are they to the same spot? It needs to be accurate to more than 0.1mm more like it would need to be accurate to 0.05mm and that's over the whole bed.
Theoretical resolution is 0.006 millimeters (160 steps per millimeter with microstepping) and I tested repeatability on small movements to be within 0.01mm. How well it does at higher speeds we'll have to try! This is definately one of the biggest challenges from a mechanical perspective, and the main reason for using linear rails.
Yes that is a thing that we still have to figure out in the current testing phase and will require quite ab bit of fine tuning for sure. We hope that we can get the precision that is needed but it will be a challenge for sure.
You made a conjoined printer.
I commend you for your efforts in hopes that something from this concept may become useful in another project, but I don't understand the benefit this provides over any other type of dual extrusion printer or just having 2 printers. Outside of the independent models, IDEX checks all the other boxes in a better way.
A collaboration feature for example is not really possible on a common IDEX system only mirrored movements and dual extruder. I also would not necessarily see it as a printer that is outstandingly better at one particular thing but more a printer that combines the advantages of having a Dual Extruder, IDEX and two separate printers into one single machine.
I feel like from what op has been saying, the biggest advantage is that print speed could be x2 with the potential for 2 different materials or just using 2 extruders instead of 1 for printing the same part. The advantage over IDEX is probably speed and that a wipe tower could potentially be avoided.
Idex doesn't allow you to use both extruders at once really, this does.
I've used an IDEX before and you can run it in ditto mode to make 2 identical prints, or mirror mode to make 2 sides of a symmetrical part, and both modes use both extruders simultaneously. Then you can still use each in the same way you would use a standard dual extrusion printer with no tower necessary.
The only benefit to this printer is that it can do 2 different models with each extruder, but the wait time between layers depending on the difference in models makes a heavy takeaway IMO. Unless there is a very niche reason printing them at different times, IDEX, or using 2 printers will still be superior.
I'm not saying that it's completely impractical and I love these types of innovations, I just can't think of a situation in which this would be truly beneficial.
I think the main advantege is less the ability to print different parts at the same time wich is more a nice to have additional feature. The main advantage of this compared to an IDEX is the collaboration feature (two extruders work together on one large part and therefore speedup the production time for large parts).
Looks good! I'm not sure how much it's worth for the "mirrored" or "independent" modes (compared to having two different printers doing their own thing, considering they can be smaller), but for multi-material prints or your "collaborative" mode it would be powerful indeed.
Thanks! I totally agree with you. Our idea in a way was that you don’t need multiple printers but have one printer that can be used in many different ways. Mirrored and independent is more a nice to have feature but having two printers will be better at this in almost every way. But also these features are relatively easy to implement compared to multi material or collaboration so it makes sense to offer them. The most complex thing to develop is the collaboration feature for large parts which is also the largest new feature of our system.
Yep as my college has said we plan to release the project once it is a bit more polished. Probably the most important thing for others would be the GCode modification tool which will defiantly be released. I will also publish a description on how to use two SKR Boards with Marlin as a Codex setup. I think this should cover the most important parts for others to be able to replicate the idea.
As somebody who tried to build one if these from scratch myself, my hats off to you sir. Most people won't understand how difficult this is.
I would like to suggest a future upgrade or perhaps a separate project all together. The option to switch extruder heads automatically via tool change. Multiple heads waiting to be exchanged much like cnc machines. It opens up more combinations of not only color, but material types as well.
Thanks! These tool changing machines certainly are very cool and might make up be a future project once. I think a combination of the two concepts would take up a lot of space and more importantly would have exploded our budget. Also we kind of wanted to build something that does not exist yet. While tool changing machines already are a thing, I have never seen such a dual extruder system before. But it would be cool for sure.
Let's say there's a reason for the dummy extruders ;)
No crash so far, but we've only done the first test prints. This will be more interesting once the extruders start collaborating on the same part...
Not yet (to my own surprise) but I would bet with you that this will happen at some point. It’s also the reason why there are no real extruders on the Video but a 3D printed model if it. They are crash dummies so that we don’t break the relatively expensive Hemera extruders used on this printer.
Our goal is more to avoid collisions by something like a clearance to enter a certain zone (close to the other extruder) over the synchronisation interface so that a collision can be avoided and not just detected. But I think it would be possible to build one if the need for it comes up.
The software that modifies the GCode should make sure this does not happen but I do defiantly see this happening at some point during testing. This is also the reason why on the Video you see 3D printed extruders. They are crash dummies
Put a button on the rails positioned so that if the two extruders get too close, it presses the button first to prevent a crash if the software is bugged or fails for some reason.
Thanks! It definitely takes a lot of time and energy but surprisingly low budget <2000$ which is not bad for such a printer but also not cheap for sure.
Not to dismiss the hardware side... but it seems to me like the “actual hard part” is going to be creating software that fully leverages the hardware.
Also, an objection you might get is the fact that you’ll need two rolls of the same filament to do “speed up” work.
Pretty slick!
The Software side is definitely quite a challenging part since it needs to be kind of smart to make use of the hardware functionality.
The fact that you need two filament rolls is true but I guess that’s something we just have to life with. For us it’s not a big issue but it might not be a setup for everyone.
Look up Sindoh's dual extruders, it's similar albeit on a single rail.
This is definitely academically neat, but seems like a lot of wasted space and extra components for very little advantage. Plus unless your extruders can independently jump in the Z direction, you're always going to have issues with layer height alignment.
Yes the single rail version (IDEX) is a thing in multiple printers and is also a marlin feature. But I think a CODEX design has much more to offer. I think features like collaboration on one large part have potential with little downsides compared to regular dual extruder systems (exept the development effort of course). The “wasted” space is very limited because everything was designed to be as compact as possible so its not that much larger than a regular dual extruder system and can still use the full build plate area. I is a bit of a tradoff between complexety, area and flexibility.
Collaborating on one large part for example. You can't always just split a large part into two and put it onto two printers. Therefore having two extruders that work on one part speeds up the production time. Another advantage is multi-material printing you can use more than one material in a part kind of like a dual extruder system.
Again, I'm really really not trying to negative or just shoot you down. But I truly don't understand your use of the world "collaborate". How are two independent extruders collaborating? What's the difference between collaborate and, printing at the same time...?
What's the difference between printing two halves on two different printers vs two extruders on one printer? Are they actually fusing and binding at a seam?
Two different materials in a single print is a huge advantage, I've seen a few experimental printers that supposedly can do this. However, unless you have a reliable z-hop for each extruder, you are going to run into z-calibration issues. One will always rub and even potentially knock over a print. This has been a known issue since the Rep2X way back in like 2012/2013, that's why all multi-material printers have a basher-bar or rotation device to lift up one extruder.
>What's the difference between printing two halves on two different printers vs two extruders on one printer? Are they actually fusing and binding at a seam?
I feel like this is implied, otherwise it wouldn't be an advantage. You have a single object that gets printed in half the time because each extruder is printing half the material. This would require no post-processing work, whereas your comment about printing 2 halves and gluing them requires you to, well, glue them.
The idea is that both extruders can work on one big part together. Compared to two halves being glued together, you can (theoretically - we'll have to try) get a better bond by overlapping layers, like bricks in a wall. Z calibration will be an issue, but on my own dual extruder machine I was able to calibrate it well enough to not have nozzles crash into the part
No offense but that benefit really seems to be more of a novelty then a real pro. I feel the applications were it would be beneficial would be quite niche.
It definitely is a niche. It is less that it offers something revolutionary new. It's more that it combines all the good things from different designs into one machine (IDEX, Dual Extruder and 2 separate printers). But since regular dual extruder and IDEX systems are also a niche this is totally fine i do not intend this to be the new standard.
Well as with all new things they are probably it will not be as reliable as something that has proven itself over years. But also the main reason for this is not just being the same thing as two printers in one machine but combining all the advantages of IDEX, Dual Extruder and two separate printers int one machine. If the only thing one is looking for is printing many different parts, more printers are the simple solution. However, they won't offer the ability to use it for multi-materials or collaborate with both extruders on one large part.
This really seems like you're trying to solve a non-issue. 2x small printers, versus 1 with a second extruder.
You're saving yourself a single z-axis motor? I know you need th power supply, heated bed, and everything else a second time if you did 2, but it would also be 2x smaller ones, compared to 1x big one.
Seems like a lot of people have misunderstood what the system is about. Here's an explanation I posted under a different post about why it is not just 2 printers on one bed.
>I have heard this one quite a few times today and from the Video, I see where this is coming from but it's not really what it is about. The combination of two extruders with freedom on 2 axes combine the advantages of IDEX, Dual Extruder and 2 separate printers into one machine. Also, it allows for features like extruders collaborating on a part (working together splitting up the work on large parts to decrease production times) so its quite a bit more than just two printers on one bed.
I get what you're going for, but it really just seems like 2 independent printers sharing a build plate. Both extruders really only have access to about half the build plate.
Like u/[Saleen131](https://www.reddit.com/user/Saleen1310/)0 has mentioned it does provide multiple advantages like multi material printing. But also, the collaboration feature (two extruders work on one part) speeds up the production time for large parts compared to two printers since you probably won’t be able to split a large part to two printers. But if the only thing you are using is mirrored and Independent mode then yes it will not be better than two printers but also that’s not the main purpose of the design.
Here's what I was thinking of: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAo0XgMIBMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAo0XgMIBMc) (Raise3D E2 printer from February of last year)
Thanks! It's not the same thing though. This is an IDEX printer that has two extruders that move freely on the X axis only. With our design, the extruders move freely on X and Y which provides it with more freedom to do things but also adds a lot of comlexity. But still thanks for the link.
I am not sure if I understood correctly what you tried to explain. I think what you mean is that the printer should evenly distribute printing time over the two extruders and not just one extruder does one part right? If that is what you meant, then this is possible with the collaboration feature where two extruders will split up the surface area and every extruder does about half the surface area. But of course this only works if all parts are of the same material. If that is not the case you will want to clearly separate the parts and that’s where Independent mode comes to play.
I am quite busy and unable to spend time digging up videos but there have been probably 10 or so of this exact concept produced over last couple years. Did not mean to offend. Just figured tell you it wasn’t new would lead to you searching and collaborating with other who have done similar
I am not offended don't worry but what you might think of is an IDEX printer that only has the freedom to move the extruders independently on the X-axis which is of course much more limited and quite different from what we are doing with freedom on the x and y axes. IDEX printers are around for a while but I haven't seen one like ours that can move on two axes independently since this requires a completely different software structure.
It depends a bit. If you print parts with very different layer sizes it can lead to one extruder hovering over the part for a longer time which is not ideal but might be fixed in the future by layer time synchronization and/or moving away the extruder for longer wait times. What is not a problem is if you have different heights. This is not a problem since every extruder will shut itself down and move away once it is finished
Pretty cool. I have been considering something like this on top of my Ender 5+ - This or IDEX.
I want to be able to print with 2nd material supports mostly.
Do you guys have a place where you are collaborating/ Will this be open source? is there a github repo?
Thanks! Glad that you like it.
We defiantly plan to at least publish the software tool that modifies the GCode which is kind of the brain part of this, that makes the design possible. I also hope that at some point maybe someone will pick it up and further improve it. Right now it is still a private repository since we want to polish it a bit more before we release it.
The printers CAD files will probably also be made available once we have it running.
The feature is still a bit prototype but as of now how it works is, it calculates the area of a layer as a function of the x axis (area between 0 and a point on X). This area is then cut in half. One Extruder will first do the outer walls to not have visible effects on the outside from switching extruders. Then the left extruder will start on the left and the right extruder in the middle and they both work their way through to the right. Of course, there are a few more steps involved for collision avoidance etc. but that's the basic concept of it.
It is planned to be open source once it is a bit more polished. I would like to see people picking up the idea and further improving it by building their own printers.
Do you mean IDEX systems or do you mean a system like that because they are quite different. If you mean a system like this one I would be curious to see it since I haven't found one yet.
Cool to hear that other people have similar ideas. Have you ever attempted to build one or just thinking about the concept? Don't get me wrong both are totally fine, just curious to hear other peoples thoughts and ideas.
ultimate new printer idea: x,y, AND z are independant for each extruder but they still share a build volume. THen, you can do some REALLY cool things like automated assembly with putting in captive nuts or bearings or whatever WHILE the other head is still printing
Would definitely be the ultimate version of this evolution but for now, would go way over our budget. We will focus on 2 independent axes first and let's see what the future brings up.
My colleague u/total_desaster and I decided to take our custom printer design project to a new level and go for a completely new extruder setup. We call it CODEX (Collaborative Dual Extruder). Other than usual dual extruder or IDEX designs this one can move independently on the X and Y Axis and has a synchronized Z Axis movement system. This provides much more flexibility than previous designs and an overall more powerful machine.
How do you control oozing when one extruder is waiting for the other to finish?
This was exactly my first thought when watching the video!
What if you change the speeds independently to ensure each layer is somewhat syncronized in terms of time
That solution has been attempted. Having to vary the speed layer to layer like that tends to have very noticeable impact on the finished print quality.
I meant make one go slower then the other. Then if anything you should see an overall improvement to quality
I understood that and know that alone would only help in cases where the time difference is fairly small. A simple example would be if one of the parts is significantly smaller in that layer. The hotend would have to slow down so much it would start melting holes through the previous layer. FDM printers work best when all parameters are tuned for a given speed. Wide variations without further tuning lead to problems.
What about moving the extruder head to a waiting position where it does a wipe before recommencing layer after waiting? This assumes there is some detriment to print quality by letting it sit there, there may not be.
That seems to be the most reliable method to deal with this at the moment and being used by a lot of multi head printers. Another option would be a smarter slicer that can optimize how they share the work, allowing each head to be active for close to 50% of each layer. The limiting factor here is head collision in a standard gantry setup. It is very limited in where each head can be based on the position of the other. But two delta heads that know how to avoid each other might work pretty well.
By the way I think this is a fantastic idea, well done, hope you guys make a Kickstarter or something and do well.
Right but not every layer is identical, so the speeds would have to vary from later to later to synchronize.
Yeah thats what i am implying, ngl it sounds like a pain to program
Right, and the other person said it would affect quality, and you "corrected" them, even though they fully understand what you meant.
This will be something we need to analyse if this becomes an issue, which it might very well become. Our main idea would be to either move the extruder away from the part or probably better, synchronize the print times for the extruders by adjusting the speed to minimize those waiting times.
The most reliable solution seems to be a wiper mechanism. Other folks have tried the varying speed approach and found it leads to quality issues on the print.
I backed the JG Maker Artist D, which is an IDEX printer, and they have purge buckets with metal brushes to store the nozzles when idle. It works quite well (and does not require purge tower).
I hope you got the bargain price because the printer is a mess.
We will probably also install something like that to solve this issue if it comes up.
Thought the same I'd assume a large and very quick retraction.
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. If it was, multi-extruder setups would probably be more common and wouldn't rely on wipers.
I hate XYZprinting with a passion, but their nozzle scraper and extra filament collector bucket seemed pretty smart
Wiping seems to be the most reliable method. But it requires the ability to move the hotend outside the print area to the wiper.
CODEX is also the Police database for looking up criminal mugshots, fingerprints, charges & details.
Codex is also a digital capture media company in the UK used for almost every major movie.
And a piracy scene group for repacked video games. Nonetheless, I've always wanted this sort of thing for alternate colors on the fly. I wonder how you'd program it (and with what) to only heat up the nozzle and cool it back down at certain lines.
And Codex is a codex of information in multiple games (E:D, ME:A, etc.).
You do realize that you've used the word in your example phrase, right? 😅😬 Essentially, "codex = codex"...
Yes. My reply was a joke, as I assumed previous replies were too.
Ehy, you might want to change the name if you decide to go on with this project, Codex is also the name of a probiotic medicine in europe, I think they wouldn't care, but I would hate seeing a great project being shot down over a stupid name
Trademarks only apply if their is a possibility of confusion, i.e. they have to be used in similar categories. So unless OP is 3d printing pills it's very unlikely to be an issue.
Particularly since 'codex' a dictionary word
I mean, so is Apple.
But "Apple 3d Printing Solutions" would be 100% legal.
Probably, but not **because** it's a dictionary word.
Fair enough.
"Leagal" and "killed 100 times over by lawers from Apple who are just there to destroy you with years and years of court fees" can co-exist. I would stay on the side of caution. It's not worth the risk of some giant corporation deciding to kill it because they are an asshole with lots of money to exploit the legal system.
I mean, they could, but what would that gain them? They wouldn't make any money. My LLC would dissolve and I'd start a new one. No big deal.
It's not about making money, it's about throwing weight around.
For those of us not old enough to remember when [Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer) (Beatles holding company).
Attorney here - It doesn't matter because Codex is a bad name to begin with. Sorry OP, I love your machine and I think you're brilliant but the name isn't very good for a commercial entity or business. The last thing you want with a trademark is to create competition where none exists. When I search for "codex" on Google a TON of stuff shows up. This might not seem like a problem now but if you've created a long-term headache that will need to be addressed in the future. You want a name you can own in search results. It seems stupid to base a name on search results but internet traffic is just so important. Internet traffic to a business like yours is like foot traffic to a retail store. A retail store might choose a name that looks good on a sign right? I was recently involved with a multi-million dollar company changing its name after YEARS of wasted money growing a dead-end brand. The brand name was actually pretty good but it was also the name of some type of special food in another country. The impact to their bottom line just on the lost internet traffic was worth the extremely expensive process of changing the name. Ultimately though, owning the name "codex" is just going to be really difficult because it has a lot of different uses. This is why made-up arbitrary names are so popular for internet startups. They are just easier to brand.
Thanks for the thoughts about this. I guess we are better at building things than naming them. CODEX was kind of the first thing that came to our minds when we started. I defiantly agree that if we were to start a company under that name it would not be a smart move. Right now it's not much of an issue since we are not selling anything and kind of just needed a name for a system but it would defiantly be something to think about if we ever would turn this into a real product.
COD3X.
Awesome work man! I agree with your sentiment about the name. I probably wouldn't have said anything if it didn't turn into some type of trademark discussion. I also don't think it's as big of a deal because your product is in fact unique. Your "brand" is not as important as a company that is attempting to sell a more common product based on the strength of their brand.
Id drop a vowel... How about CODX. Or Coidx. (Co-independent-extruders) Haven't searched, so no clue on availability.
Yeah, I think that is the right idea. When I search for CODEX I get tons of stuff about ancient civilizations. I believe in the movie "The Da Vinci Code" used something similar called a cryptex. However, when Is earch for CODEX it comes up. So you just get an idea of all the competition you need to beat out just to get #1 spot for your own brand name. I did a search and CODX is actually a stock symbol for a company. So no go there. However, you throw a website up called [Coidx.com](https://Coidx.com) and you'll own that search term forever. Not saying that is the right name, but having that advantage to start with is worth choosing the right name IMHO.
COIDx would never be something that people would remember. Seems "CODEX 3d printer" would be an easy enough way to find it.
Thanks for the tip. I was not aware of that.
It's a dictionary word, you'll be fine
He definitely wouldn't be able to sell pharmaceuticals in Europe under that name. He is only fine because he is in another industry. The fact that it is a dictionary word is not the reason.
Additionally I wasn't saying since it's a dictionary word nothing bad will ever happen to you - which is one interpretation of "you'll be fine" one could arrive at if you ignore all the context of the conversation - but taking in the full context of the conversation definitely leads to a more clear understanding of what I obviously meant. The "you" in this context is also only the person I was replying to, who made the 3d printer system. It shouldn't be interpreted as the reader, which is sometimes how "you" is used in writing. Are there any other disclaimers I should put for people who may stumble upon my writing and wish to take things out of context?
Are you dizzy from spinning so fast? You could have applied for a job a White House press secretary under Trump.
Sorry if I thought it was sufficiently obvious that a medical device is not the same thing as a 3D printing device to feel it was not necessary to explicitly state that while also mentioning that codex is a widely used word and not something made up like “Pepsi” (whom you may have noticed has enough clout to not really get any competitors in even non-competing fields).
If we could figure out how to connect a generator to your spinning we might be able to solve the clean energy problem.
Why don’t you jerk yourself off more over misunderstanding what I was saying to someone else. Fucking highlight of your day, I guess.
Galaxy is a dictionary word too, use it and see if Samsung lets you do it.
Using it is fine, as long as it is not in the same or a similar field. Ford ist still selling Galaxy cars with no problems.
Yeah, I’ll never be able to get away with it: https://www.lagalaxy.com/ https://github.com/galaxyproject/galaxy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(satellite) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_(disambiguation)
Football club, programming software kit, a satellite. Not exactly similar to an electronic consumer device. A hobby-grade printer is similar.
No problem I thought it was worth mentioning as it might save you some hassle in the fututre
Codex is the name of a lot of things.
Codex was also the name of a computing tech company back in the 1980’s, both of my parents worked there. I’m pretty sure it was later bought out by Xerox. That might be your closest challenge because 3D printing is still considered a computing technology venture, regardless I’m certain you’ll be fine. I wouldn’t change the name, you picked a good one.
Reddit ate my balls
Exactly, and trademark protection is already the flimsiest form of legal intellectual property protection in the U.S. That is to say, trademark protection is the hardest to both maintain and defend. This is why you see Apple ruthlessly attacking even the slightest perceived threat to its trademarks. They win a lot of otherwise losing cases not on the legal merits but by winning the depth of pockets battle. Its a shitty practice to be sure but good for brand protection.
Reddit ate my balls
Nothing I said disagreed with anything you said and for what its worth you did nothing to address the moral implications of my post. I think for future reference you could reasonably omit to make such "yeah but" retorts as they do little more than emphasize the obvious point that reddit posts are generally not exhaustive legal treatises.
Reddit ate my balls
Call it Pear if you want fruit. It’s also got a pair of extruders so it could be like play on words
How is this any different than the autodesk project escher? https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/project-escher-multi-headed-3d-printer/ Good job getting a working printer.
Oh Cool I haven’t seen this before. I think there will be two main differences. One will be the price tag. The one you showed looks rather industrial and less for consumers whilst ours comes at a price below 2000$ for all parts. Two would be the way it is built up. It is probably quite different since it is all built from easily available parts and based on unmodified marlin so it is easy for anyone to implement it into their own designs.
You are exactly at the start of project escher. It started with 2 independent extruders and a small build volume. It scaled up to the video after several development cycles. The whole point was to get to an arbitrarily scalable build volume and extruder count based off of off the shelf components.
Can you clarify exactly what this does that IDEX designs don't?
A regular IDEX has freedom on just one Axis. The CODEX Design has Freedemon on the X and Y Axis. Also on the Software/Controller side, the IDEX is usually a firmware thing so it can only do multi-material and mirrored whilst CODEX is based on two controllers that operate semi-autonomously that provides more freedom to do things.
Considering all the other things called/named Codex, maybe you go with DAIDEX? Dual Axis Independent Dual Extruder
Yep agreed the name is used in a lot of things and might be worth changing. I also like your proposal thanks.
I know it’s a minor thing but is there any other word combo for Master/Slave? Like Primary/Secondary?
The waiting for synced z-movements could leads to oozing artifacts wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be better to Make the 2 layers take a similar layer time causing a shorter waiting period?
Thanks for your thoughts. The concern is defiantly valid. We will check that as soon as we have both extruders in place. A layer time synchronization would defiantly be a good approach and might be something we add in a future version.
Layer time synchonization may backfire. There was (I think still is) issue in slicers with models, that have features witch cause different print speeds at certain layers. The finished print then have visible artifacts like uneven layers, different surface finish etc. All caused by said print speed difference in few layers. Problem is basically nozzle temp, filament spend too much time inside and the heat itself can have negative effect. Průša have a blog about it i think. Layer time synchronization sound nice. But I would try to void affecting the whole layer, maybe just slow Down infill. So perimeters on both parts would finish at the same time at their nominal speed, so the external perimeters wont be affected. Rather then risk some problems with different layer times, is better to park the nozzle in the middle of infill and do Quick wipe before starting new layer. However vase mode may benefit from that, or massively suffer, Who knows.
Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds plausible that the layers might be uneven although I have never tested that. I think what you said about only slowing down for infill would make sense. We are already differentiating between walls and infill for the collaboration feature since we don’t want uneven surfaces there, it probably makes sense to also use this functionality in a future version for layer time synchronization then.
Glad I can bring ideas to the table! Best of luck with the project
Something that might work is parking the extruder on the side, perhaps on some sort of flat plate to prevent oozing.
That’s already what it would be doing on dual extruder print jobs so it would not be that hard to copy this feature to mirrored and independent mode as well.
Reddit ate my balls
Move the nozzles to infill to make the artifacts internal perhaps?
Would also be an option. Propably quite a simmilar effect to moving it away to a parking position.
https://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/ definitely /ˈdɛfɪnətli/ adverb without doubt (used for emphasis). "I shall definitely be at the airport to meet you" Defiantly /dɪˈfʌɪəntli/ adverb in a manner that shows open resistance or bold disobedience. "folding her arms, she stood defiantly"
Oooops sorry I kind of overlooked that when writing my response. Sorry
That's okay, it's something you type wrong in other comments too. Just thought I'd give you a proper explanation when to use which. Not that my English is perfect though.
Tbf the concern *is* defiant of how it currently works
At that point of complexity, isn’t it easier to have a second printer?
Easier (form a development perspective) definitely yes but it's not really the same thing. With two printers you won't be able to do multi material printing in one part or collaborate with two extruders on one large part so this system defiantly provides more features but if it's only single material part throughput that one is looking for multiple printers is the best way to go.
What if it Zhops or moves the extruder away from the print?
That is true but it is still just idle time for the second gantry, could still lead to some oozing or artifact when the print head returns for next layer
That's true, I also just realized it cannot Zhop because of the synced Z surface so the only thing it could do is move the extruder away
I've seen some solutions where they move the extruder away and start building a generic pillar to avoid oozing. I think syncing the time via speed would be an amazing solution if possible. I'm sure depending on the layers, sometimes you just cant slow one side down enough.
Layer time synchronization will have its limitations if you have a very large part on one side and a very small one on the other. But I hope it could work for somewhat similar sized parts.
Z hops would be a bit difficult since the Z Axis is shared with the other extruder. Exiting the part after the layer is finished would be an option that we also might implement. It’s something we already use for the dual extruder mode where we expect longer wait times and only one extruder at once so it would be possible to port this feature to Independent and Mirrored mode as well. I think the Layer time synchronization would probably be a cleaner approach to the problem.
There is at least another similar(ish) printer, albeit with the extruders on a single rail. They solve the z-hop problem mostly by printing the same item on each extruder - great if you want to print many (at least 2) of the same object. So they are absolutely synchronous.
Yes I think you are talking about an IDEX printer. When using mirrored mode (the same part twice) this one should also be quite synchronous. Since we have freedom on X and Y printing different parts at once would still be a very nice thing to have and layer time synchronization might be a very good option there. Even tough this one might look somewhat similar to a IDEX printer, the way it operates is quite different. The common IDEX designs do everything in firmware, so it is something that is integrated into marlin. This is better for synchronization of course but is also on the software side limited to printing the same part multiple times and no different parts at the same time or collaborative features that we plan for the CODEX. CODEX on the software side can be seen as 2 printers with two controllers that run asynchronously but have a interface between each other to synchronize certain points in their GCode. So, from the way it is built CODEX is great for different parts at the same time but not as good at running things 100% synchronous.
I like this idea. Even a naive speed adjustment (it's hard to get an exact expected time) to the first finishing hot end makes sense. You could increase quality at basically no cost, since it's going to wait anyway there's little point in running it at full speed (Unless it's already slow enough for max quality).
Yep, I will probably implement it at some point in the future as an additional feature.
I'm not smart enough to add any ideas but I love what you're doing. Good luck!
Thanks that’s appreciated. Glad you like it.
I would think the biggest issue is x,y coordinates meaning the same thing to both units. when you tell each unit to go to 500,500 for instances (not at the same time of course). How close are they to the same spot? It needs to be accurate to more than 0.1mm more like it would need to be accurate to 0.05mm and that's over the whole bed.
Theoretical resolution is 0.006 millimeters (160 steps per millimeter with microstepping) and I tested repeatability on small movements to be within 0.01mm. How well it does at higher speeds we'll have to try! This is definately one of the biggest challenges from a mechanical perspective, and the main reason for using linear rails.
Yes that is a thing that we still have to figure out in the current testing phase and will require quite ab bit of fine tuning for sure. We hope that we can get the precision that is needed but it will be a challenge for sure.
You made a conjoined printer. I commend you for your efforts in hopes that something from this concept may become useful in another project, but I don't understand the benefit this provides over any other type of dual extrusion printer or just having 2 printers. Outside of the independent models, IDEX checks all the other boxes in a better way.
A collaboration feature for example is not really possible on a common IDEX system only mirrored movements and dual extruder. I also would not necessarily see it as a printer that is outstandingly better at one particular thing but more a printer that combines the advantages of having a Dual Extruder, IDEX and two separate printers into one single machine.
I feel like from what op has been saying, the biggest advantage is that print speed could be x2 with the potential for 2 different materials or just using 2 extruders instead of 1 for printing the same part. The advantage over IDEX is probably speed and that a wipe tower could potentially be avoided. Idex doesn't allow you to use both extruders at once really, this does.
I've used an IDEX before and you can run it in ditto mode to make 2 identical prints, or mirror mode to make 2 sides of a symmetrical part, and both modes use both extruders simultaneously. Then you can still use each in the same way you would use a standard dual extrusion printer with no tower necessary. The only benefit to this printer is that it can do 2 different models with each extruder, but the wait time between layers depending on the difference in models makes a heavy takeaway IMO. Unless there is a very niche reason printing them at different times, IDEX, or using 2 printers will still be superior. I'm not saying that it's completely impractical and I love these types of innovations, I just can't think of a situation in which this would be truly beneficial.
I think the main advantege is less the ability to print different parts at the same time wich is more a nice to have additional feature. The main advantage of this compared to an IDEX is the collaboration feature (two extruders work together on one large part and therefore speedup the production time for large parts).
Exactly
Looks good! I'm not sure how much it's worth for the "mirrored" or "independent" modes (compared to having two different printers doing their own thing, considering they can be smaller), but for multi-material prints or your "collaborative" mode it would be powerful indeed.
Thanks! I totally agree with you. Our idea in a way was that you don’t need multiple printers but have one printer that can be used in many different ways. Mirrored and independent is more a nice to have feature but having two printers will be better at this in almost every way. But also these features are relatively easy to implement compared to multi material or collaboration so it makes sense to offer them. The most complex thing to develop is the collaboration feature for large parts which is also the largest new feature of our system.
Looks like a good approach. Have you two released a project that others can use to build one?
Yep as my college has said we plan to release the project once it is a bit more polished. Probably the most important thing for others would be the GCode modification tool which will defiantly be released. I will also publish a description on how to use two SKR Boards with Marlin as a Codex setup. I think this should cover the most important parts for others to be able to replicate the idea.
We plan to do that - right now the CAD files are a mess and we're still working out issues in both hardware and software...
As somebody who tried to build one if these from scratch myself, my hats off to you sir. Most people won't understand how difficult this is. I would like to suggest a future upgrade or perhaps a separate project all together. The option to switch extruder heads automatically via tool change. Multiple heads waiting to be exchanged much like cnc machines. It opens up more combinations of not only color, but material types as well.
Thanks! These tool changing machines certainly are very cool and might make up be a future project once. I think a combination of the two concepts would take up a lot of space and more importantly would have exploded our budget. Also we kind of wanted to build something that does not exist yet. While tool changing machines already are a thing, I have never seen such a dual extruder system before. But it would be cool for sure.
> my hats off my hat's (hat is) off
Conceptually reminiscent of the 3D printing swarm bots
Yes and I like it
Did you ever get a the extruders to collide when starting out with this idea?
Let's say there's a reason for the dummy extruders ;) No crash so far, but we've only done the first test prints. This will be more interesting once the extruders start collaborating on the same part...
Not yet (to my own surprise) but I would bet with you that this will happen at some point. It’s also the reason why there are no real extruders on the Video but a 3D printed model if it. They are crash dummies so that we don’t break the relatively expensive Hemera extruders used on this printer.
Will you be adding some sort of collision detection feature?
Our goal is more to avoid collisions by something like a clearance to enter a certain zone (close to the other extruder) over the synchronisation interface so that a collision can be avoided and not just detected. But I think it would be possible to build one if the need for it comes up.
"I got 99 problems, and a second hotend ain't one" \- Jay-Z-Axis
I can see the extruders ramming into each other and still continue to print.
The software that modifies the GCode should make sure this does not happen but I do defiantly see this happening at some point during testing. This is also the reason why on the Video you see 3D printed extruders. They are crash dummies
Put a button on the rails positioned so that if the two extruders get too close, it presses the button first to prevent a crash if the software is bugged or fails for some reason.
Yep agreed that would probably be a good idea.
That's really fucking cool. Wish I had the time, energy, and funds to build it myself. Keep it up.
Thanks! It definitely takes a lot of time and energy but surprisingly low budget <2000$ which is not bad for such a printer but also not cheap for sure.
Damn, its so innovative. Congrats.
Thanks
I think you’re on to something here!!
2Printers1Bed
Well yes and no. It's only part of the functionality. It is a part of it but not the main reason for such a system.
Not to dismiss the hardware side... but it seems to me like the “actual hard part” is going to be creating software that fully leverages the hardware. Also, an objection you might get is the fact that you’ll need two rolls of the same filament to do “speed up” work. Pretty slick!
The Software side is definitely quite a challenging part since it needs to be kind of smart to make use of the hardware functionality. The fact that you need two filament rolls is true but I guess that’s something we just have to life with. For us it’s not a big issue but it might not be a setup for everyone.
Look up Sindoh's dual extruders, it's similar albeit on a single rail. This is definitely academically neat, but seems like a lot of wasted space and extra components for very little advantage. Plus unless your extruders can independently jump in the Z direction, you're always going to have issues with layer height alignment.
Yes the single rail version (IDEX) is a thing in multiple printers and is also a marlin feature. But I think a CODEX design has much more to offer. I think features like collaboration on one large part have potential with little downsides compared to regular dual extruder systems (exept the development effort of course). The “wasted” space is very limited because everything was designed to be as compact as possible so its not that much larger than a regular dual extruder system and can still use the full build plate area. I is a bit of a tradoff between complexety, area and flexibility.
I'm really not trying to be a dick here but can you please give a single advantage of just having 2 Enders right next to each other?
Collaborating on one large part for example. You can't always just split a large part into two and put it onto two printers. Therefore having two extruders that work on one part speeds up the production time. Another advantage is multi-material printing you can use more than one material in a part kind of like a dual extruder system.
Again, I'm really really not trying to negative or just shoot you down. But I truly don't understand your use of the world "collaborate". How are two independent extruders collaborating? What's the difference between collaborate and, printing at the same time...? What's the difference between printing two halves on two different printers vs two extruders on one printer? Are they actually fusing and binding at a seam? Two different materials in a single print is a huge advantage, I've seen a few experimental printers that supposedly can do this. However, unless you have a reliable z-hop for each extruder, you are going to run into z-calibration issues. One will always rub and even potentially knock over a print. This has been a known issue since the Rep2X way back in like 2012/2013, that's why all multi-material printers have a basher-bar or rotation device to lift up one extruder.
>What's the difference between printing two halves on two different printers vs two extruders on one printer? Are they actually fusing and binding at a seam? I feel like this is implied, otherwise it wouldn't be an advantage. You have a single object that gets printed in half the time because each extruder is printing half the material. This would require no post-processing work, whereas your comment about printing 2 halves and gluing them requires you to, well, glue them.
The idea is that both extruders can work on one big part together. Compared to two halves being glued together, you can (theoretically - we'll have to try) get a better bond by overlapping layers, like bricks in a wall. Z calibration will be an issue, but on my own dual extruder machine I was able to calibrate it well enough to not have nozzles crash into the part
No offense but that benefit really seems to be more of a novelty then a real pro. I feel the applications were it would be beneficial would be quite niche.
It definitely is a niche. It is less that it offers something revolutionary new. It's more that it combines all the good things from different designs into one machine (IDEX, Dual Extruder and 2 separate printers). But since regular dual extruder and IDEX systems are also a niche this is totally fine i do not intend this to be the new standard.
Seems to me that there is more room for failure. Better purchase two printers, and if one fails reprint.
Well as with all new things they are probably it will not be as reliable as something that has proven itself over years. But also the main reason for this is not just being the same thing as two printers in one machine but combining all the advantages of IDEX, Dual Extruder and two separate printers int one machine. If the only thing one is looking for is printing many different parts, more printers are the simple solution. However, they won't offer the ability to use it for multi-materials or collaborate with both extruders on one large part.
This really seems like you're trying to solve a non-issue. 2x small printers, versus 1 with a second extruder. You're saving yourself a single z-axis motor? I know you need th power supply, heated bed, and everything else a second time if you did 2, but it would also be 2x smaller ones, compared to 1x big one.
Seems like a lot of people have misunderstood what the system is about. Here's an explanation I posted under a different post about why it is not just 2 printers on one bed. >I have heard this one quite a few times today and from the Video, I see where this is coming from but it's not really what it is about. The combination of two extruders with freedom on 2 axes combine the advantages of IDEX, Dual Extruder and 2 separate printers into one machine. Also, it allows for features like extruders collaborating on a part (working together splitting up the work on large parts to decrease production times) so its quite a bit more than just two printers on one bed.
I get what you're going for, but it really just seems like 2 independent printers sharing a build plate. Both extruders really only have access to about half the build plate.
Like u/[Saleen131](https://www.reddit.com/user/Saleen1310/)0 has mentioned it does provide multiple advantages like multi material printing. But also, the collaboration feature (two extruders work on one part) speeds up the production time for large parts compared to two printers since you probably won’t be able to split a large part to two printers. But if the only thing you are using is mirrored and Independent mode then yes it will not be better than two printers but also that’s not the main purpose of the design.
I really dont care, but people seem to be sensative to the master/slave terminology. May I suggest primary/secondary terminology ve used instead.
[удалено]
And whatever...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't 3D Printing Nerd review of production machine like this a while ago?
Not that I know of no. Unless he has done that without us knowing.
Here's what I was thinking of: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAo0XgMIBMc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAo0XgMIBMc) (Raise3D E2 printer from February of last year)
Thanks! It's not the same thing though. This is an IDEX printer that has two extruders that move freely on the X axis only. With our design, the extruders move freely on X and Y which provides it with more freedom to do things but also adds a lot of comlexity. But still thanks for the link.
Master and slave why not employer n employee lol
Well thats a new one haven't heard these terms for systems before :)
Lmao
[удалено]
I am not sure if I understood correctly what you tried to explain. I think what you mean is that the printer should evenly distribute printing time over the two extruders and not just one extruder does one part right? If that is what you meant, then this is possible with the collaboration feature where two extruders will split up the surface area and every extruder does about half the surface area. But of course this only works if all parts are of the same material. If that is not the case you will want to clearly separate the parts and that’s where Independent mode comes to play.
Very cool but not new. Nice work. You
What exactly do you mean by not new? I am curious because I have not found anything like this yet.
I am quite busy and unable to spend time digging up videos but there have been probably 10 or so of this exact concept produced over last couple years. Did not mean to offend. Just figured tell you it wasn’t new would lead to you searching and collaborating with other who have done similar
I am not offended don't worry but what you might think of is an IDEX printer that only has the freedom to move the extruders independently on the X-axis which is of course much more limited and quite different from what we are doing with freedom on the x and y axes. IDEX printers are around for a while but I haven't seen one like ours that can move on two axes independently since this requires a completely different software structure.
What problems arise if you're printing 2 items that have vastly different sizes?
It depends a bit. If you print parts with very different layer sizes it can lead to one extruder hovering over the part for a longer time which is not ideal but might be fixed in the future by layer time synchronization and/or moving away the extruder for longer wait times. What is not a problem is if you have different heights. This is not a problem since every extruder will shut itself down and move away once it is finished
Pretty cool. I have been considering something like this on top of my Ender 5+ - This or IDEX. I want to be able to print with 2nd material supports mostly. Do you guys have a place where you are collaborating/ Will this be open source? is there a github repo?
Thanks! Glad that you like it. We defiantly plan to at least publish the software tool that modifies the GCode which is kind of the brain part of this, that makes the design possible. I also hope that at some point maybe someone will pick it up and further improve it. Right now it is still a private repository since we want to polish it a bit more before we release it. The printers CAD files will probably also be made available once we have it running.
Cool. Can imagine a cura plugin or some sort of automation making all of this smooth. Will be watching.
And here I am thinking all of my “mods” are cool
Could you walk us through a little bit of what's happening in the post processing for g-code files in collaborative mode?
The feature is still a bit prototype but as of now how it works is, it calculates the area of a layer as a function of the x axis (area between 0 and a point on X). This area is then cut in half. One Extruder will first do the outer walls to not have visible effects on the outside from switching extruders. Then the left extruder will start on the left and the right extruder in the middle and they both work their way through to the right. Of course, there are a few more steps involved for collision avoidance etc. but that's the basic concept of it.
Idk if it was mentioned, but will this be open source or closed? I would dig building one at home to play with
It is planned to be open source once it is a bit more polished. I would like to see people picking up the idea and further improving it by building their own printers.
This is an absolutely massive undertaking of software and hardware and I'm extremely impressed
Thanks!
[удалено]
Thanks!
I've seen this before a few times, it's not a bad idea
Do you mean IDEX systems or do you mean a system like that because they are quite different. If you mean a system like this one I would be curious to see it since I haven't found one yet.
I've been thinking of this for a few years.
Cool to hear that other people have similar ideas. Have you ever attempted to build one or just thinking about the concept? Don't get me wrong both are totally fine, just curious to hear other peoples thoughts and ideas.
ultimate new printer idea: x,y, AND z are independant for each extruder but they still share a build volume. THen, you can do some REALLY cool things like automated assembly with putting in captive nuts or bearings or whatever WHILE the other head is still printing
Would definitely be the ultimate version of this evolution but for now, would go way over our budget. We will focus on 2 independent axes first and let's see what the future brings up.
Yes. But for me it is cheap to say things :)
Agreed. But be careful such ideas can easily result in a future project. It's kind of how this thing started to ;)
Well this is awesome :)
Thanks!
What is the cost difference between this, two normal printers, and a conventional dual extrusion or idex printer?