3DPrinting
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: !functionalprint@kbin.social or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
view the rest of the comments
Note that I don't own a multi-filament setup so I can't speak from personal experience, but this is after I'd done extensive research into it and determined it wasn't worth it for my personal use case.
What kind of parts will you be printing in multi-material? The kind of prints you are doing will greatly determine the best approach. Some smaller prints with many filament changes will result in purge blocks with more mass than the part itself.. ie more than double normal filament usage.
IMO the tool changers are the way to go and I think we will be seeing more of them in higher end machines. I personally wouldn't use multiple materials for the sake of colors, but different tool heads offers the ability to print with different materials at different temperatures, as well as different nozzle sizes or different setups altogether. For example you can have a 0.6 volcano nozzle for the bulk of your print, a standard 0.2 nozzle with the same filament for fine details, and a 0.4 nozzle with a water soluble filament for supports.
This is just speculation, but I'm betting that we'll see tool changers with more than just extruders on deck - imagine if you could add a Dremel head for post-print sanding, or a drill bit to clear out holes.
I have an MK4+MMU that I bought partially with the intent of building PLA-supported PETG and TPU parts. I haven't dug in too far yet but in the few prints I've done the PLA has severely degraded interlayer adhesion. Presumably this can be addressed by purging (much) more on changes from PLA, but if I had known this before I bought, I would have seriously considered a multi-head printer.
My understanding is that PLA and PETG will not adhere together, so I guess if there's any residual PLA when printing the PETG it will cause it to not adhere fully. Makes sense and is a perfect example of where a tool changer would be incredibly useful.
I'm assuming you're using PLA to support the PETG parts because of their inability to adhere to each other? Don't know if you've seen it, but if you have relatively large, flat overhangs that need support, you can color in the top layer of the supports with a permanent marker. This will cause the same inability to adhere and you can snap the part off easy. Not really practical for multiple areas of support or if you need something like tree supports, but if you've got angular parts or similar could save a lot of time
I'm curious to hear if you find a solution to this as you play with it more. I think some people are able to make it work with some setups, so I'm curious if something makes the Prusa different. If there isn't a way to make it work, I think this has to be crossed off my list of options.
I like to do a large variety of prints. Small, big, batch, even using separate filament for support. So yes, I expect to use lots of purged filament, but I don't think that is really avoidable.
I agree that tool changers are probably the endgame. However, given that the Prusa XL is the only one on the market, and no other brand has even announced anything, I think its going to be at least two years before an affordable high-quality tool changer hits the market. I think these are my options in the mean time.
I do know about the DAKSH, but given that it's an early community project, don't think that will be ready any sooner.
How quickly do you need to get a setup going? The way I like to approach these kinds of things (printers, computers, etc) is to get a good platform that will support what you want to do in the future even if it can't do it now. If you're thinking about a DAKSH setup on a voron, I would build the voron now with the DAKSH in mind and build that add-on when it's more available.
What I would be trying to avoid is getting something like the ERCF and then getting buyer's (builder's?) remorse if significant progress on the DAKSH is made shortly after. Yes, the ERCF let's you print multi-filament NOW, and you could theoretically use it with a voron and then upgrade it to a DAKSH system later, but if you invest in that approach, you likely won't want to rebuild your setup for a multi-tool setup.
All of this is assuming that you care about the other benefits of multi-tool, which of course you may or may not. If all that's important is multiple filaments with relatively similar properties, just get whatever is in your price range and you feel comfortable toying with. If multi-tool interests you at all and you don't need something right away, I'd build something with that in mind and feel out the progress before making a final decision.