This is why I love the 3d printer space, most industrial manufacturing processes slowly get more and more insular, more specialized tools, specialized software that is not at all user friendly, etc. open source designs actually get improved upon because so many people use then and give feedback in a very helpful community
So very true, I created a range of folding TPU receiver & antenna holders for quadcopters which are super easy to print and use, holding them securely in a way no other prints have before. A lot of the design elements in them came from suggestions in a Facebook group after I posted the first iterations. Resulting in them being recommended throughout the FPV drone community.
Very very cool. Definitely a long way to go but imagine the ability to add pseudo-isotropic skins to prints to strengthen layer z of a traditional cartesian print.
Will never take off until the software matures. This is the same problem with 3D Construction printing at the moment. Using Rhino and a grasshopper script is non-intuitive and a major barrier for most.
I don’t see why this couldn’t be added to Cura … this is basically taking away the bed movement and adding a extra axis . I mean it’s kinda amazing how good Cura is already I can see it eventually getting 5 axis slicing.
Wow! What a fascinating project. I love seeing the continued adaptation of modern CNC solutions into the 3D printing world. It makes the CNC technology reachable and achievable by the average home hobbyist. What is great about this is that the knowledge and skills one learns with this easily extends onto full scale, metal CNC machining. The 4th/5th-axis Trunnion solution you have designed looks solid. For sure the key moving forward will be the continued development of the slicing software to generate the tool paths. Being open source, I'm confident the geniuses in our open source world will add much value to this. Thanks for sharing your project.
it will probably help somewhat in starting to think about using 5 axes when thinking about manufacuring a part, but beyond that, additive manufacturing is sucj a fundamentally different paradigm to subtractive manufacturing, that there is not all that much overlap between the ways you have to think about manufacturing parts when using these technologies. Not that I don't approve of course, but I think this is not quite the best use case scenario for this technology
Yep. Imagine if you could print cylinders orthogonally to the z-axis by rotating the piece. Not only do you no longer need supports, but you eliminate the layer effect that you get from printing cylinders horizontally. The issue of course is that you really need to minimise the size of your build plate if you want to flip entirely 90 degrees. But I reckon that you could get most of the advantages with a 45 degree rotation.
Most impressive! I'm a Rhino 3D user, and know the basics of Grasshopper, but to create a whole slicer using Grasshopper is truly brilliant and intense work. might have to experiment with this! Thanks for sharing!
Interesting idea, but the $80 slewing ring bearing kills the BOM, and using an industrial grade bearing like that is pointless when the rest of your assembly is plastic. Swap that out for two $5 off-the-shelf large diameter bearings and a bushing, and it's instantly a lot more affordable.
Nice. I saw myself and friends in the background :P This is the first video on the machine where it was really indicated that the 5th axis part is more vase-mode following a surface normal, which would make the slicing + inverse kinematics easier. General purpose would be very hard but should be doable with some work.
And it works with any printer with the latest Marlin Firmware installed with extra axis support enabled, as the "U" axis. So anyone with a RepRap device (and a spare stepper plug) can enter the next dimension!
I want to know how we're kinematically understanding the machine, breakthroughs in 3D printing like this can add value to people building their own cnc machines. For example, I have a five-axis now that is not kinematically able to have code made. From fusion I can move all five axes but if I try to do an operation but kinematically I have to figure out how to write code for it
Unfortunately, fusion will not let you add machine, kinematics and generate the G-Code for you Migrating to other softwares like solid cam would but that is undesirable It is interesting to see people doing things like this
This is great. Another thing that can be great is to unlock the full protential of G-code and not use STL files. I want round circles, not 360 straight edges.
this is just like the "normal" CNC machine, just like a Haas VF3 compared to a Haas UMC-750, but each machine fits a different job, but if they made the rotary table/cradle more like a TRT100, then they might be able to reduce the size, and allow for bigger prints hopefully :D
It's hard to say that any part of this project is sad, it's just a consequence of every trunnion style 5 axis configuration. Every 3 axis machine build volume shrinks when the 5 axis setup is installed.
This is so nice! And it not just a question about minimize support material, it also a way where you can prioritize different surface quality and (strength-) properties in the same oriented model! Also very lovely that you use a Prusa as ground for the project! That make it easy for a lot of other people to also built/upgrade at the platform they already have. Nice work!
Very cool. This could print almost anything, with no supports or infill and with "layers" in whatever orientation gives the best adhesion. As he said, the hardware was basically easy and the software is the tough part, as evidenced by the demos with simple 2D-paths extruded out and multiplied.
Slicing/CAM has always been the issue with anything more than 4x. It just requires a lot of manual programming and specific skillsets that most people aren't willing to learn.
😯Really cool project! Especially using it a bit like a lathe could potentially wrap up the weak layer direction into cylinders. And one extra axis still. For the propeller demo object it does the opposite though. As the blades are disjunct the chosen orientation weakens the propeller blades. But it should be possible to still print overhang free but with way better layer orientation.
Hello Thomas, I'm a big fan and I have been for years. I was wondering if you had ever considered making one of these yourself. The designs are open source, after all. I'd be very curious to know how accessible this is, where it needs work, and your general impressions on it.
I love fdm tech as we don’t cut away scraps material but add when we want it. Also it can do what Normal cut mill turn CNC cannot do. Yeah the presenter is right.. hardware is not the problem. Software and slicers going 5D is a bit tough though nothing is impossible. Thanks for sharing 💕.
If that «axis- bench» is separated out it would be a great add on to all printers, probably delta would be the best, but i understand the slicer would probably require some rewrites, but a great concept!
As a mechanical engineer I look at that and think it isn't hard to make. We actually make stuff like that in industrial space all the time... HOWEVER... 3D printing and how the slicing is done is nothing like what we do with machining or welding. In those we just set paths, and it works. However... Nobody is going to write a 3D object in pure Gcode. The problem isn't that it can't be done - it can be, I do it all the time. Issue is that additive manufacturing requires things like infill and different path properties, and along with that the extrusion volume calculations. That is the problem. The problem is software, and especially the slicing. We have solved the axis controls, and those controllers and equipment are available for cheap nowadays. We automate lots of things and retrofit many machines at my place of work. However we don't need to do the calculations that are done in additive manufacturing.
From an Imperial College of London to someone who evolved the next generation of 3D printers deserves hats off, when rest of the world is still stuck in same 3 axis from around 40 years of invention of 3d printing... actually he don't deserves the place where he is sitting, he invented 5 axis printing!!
Do CNC machines need slicer too, is it just g code in different way? Can't you use the same code from CNC 5axes mill just in reverse? Let's say we make a same size mill in cad as plastic being extruded in 3d printer, then in cad we have our work piece, our part and we just make our mill in cad mill away entire part just leave the base you are supposed to print on, a sphere or other shape that is not just flat so it uses all the axes?
Finished one 6 years ago, aluminium prices were cheap then. It's working and prints with cobbled together G-Code. Still no slicer to make some use of it. It will always be just a thing on the shelf: - No slicers for it - If there will be a slicer, it would take huge amounts of time to slice parts the way you want. - Automating the Slicer to make it somewhat usable like 3-Axis slicers would take years, because there is no industrial interest. - You go all the long to have a workflow and in the end you still have an FDM print, (of course it is waaay improved because of the layer oriantation) but it will never be as good as a SLS, Polyjet, which is getting cheaper too. Really enjoyed the build, all machined out of aluminum, linear rails, small ballscrews, servos, tiny Harmonic Drives, 3 different sized heatbeds with quick change, quick change extruder with an custom hotend.
A few industrial cam systems support additive manufacturing these days. I'm looking at one right now on my laptop. Haven't tried the feature yet, though.
Would this technically only NEED to run as a 4 axis machine? Being as the gantry y axis doesn’t have to move anymore? This is an awesome project regardless…
This is more of a thinking exercise than a practical application of 3D printing. For freeform printing imo SLS is the tech, it needs to come down in price to thousands of dollars instead of ten thousands of dollars. FDM is crude and has too many fundamental limitations to be revolutionary.
The problem I have as a Maker who might use OnShape is all of my data would be public. That does not work for me and there is no way I could ever afford one of their Pro subscription plans. So, I will not use OnShape for my 3D CAD projects.
A great accomplishment from an engineering standpoint, but it has drawbacks also. Apart from the software to run it, the usability is also limited as the trunnion table and extended nozzle take up quite a large chunk of the available working area. It isn't going to be cheap to build, as you'll need some precision parts to minimise the mentioned absolute zero offset. Printed parts will not cut it I think, it'll require milling. Also there are only so many parts that will fit the relatively small remaining working area and benefit from not needing supports. I for one would rather have an IDEX. Will work with free software, minimal loss of working area if at all, will let you print all of the showed parts 3 times the size and supports can be done in PVA if need be, to be able to wash them off and have crisp edges. Just two tone with PVA supports will be a challenge, but I'd rather occasionally paint some parts then have the significant size limitation. In my opinion, the amount of viable user cases for at-home 5 axis 3d printing will be very limited. Even in the industrial milling field the majority of machines is 3 axis still, for similar reasons.
I still stand by the video and its messaging being correct and valid at the time and in the context it was uploaded in. Onshape has since been bought by PTC and they have moved more towards accepting and committing to free users. Fusion turned out to not be much better in what they offer free users, with features coming and going seemingly at random. I'll be trying a couple more CAD tools in the coming months, but with Onshape's updated policies it is back in the race for me.
@@MadeWithLayers personally is what I use,nevertheless I have a education account myself. One free and open source option not so powerful but with same logic in the features and operations is salome-plataform.
Is the software of the 5achses 3d printer in 2024 any better? How is this not the new way to make the hard parts like this? You can print wood, steal and so on🤔🫣 I need an investor asap....let's get it done 🎉
Exited on the one hand, on the other hand do i wish for more software slicing optimisation. there are so many trickerys in GCode possible for Overhangs and stuff. maybe invest more in those things.
Is this the same concept as the rotating printer head from CNC kitchen? that would probably be a better option as you wouldn't have to sacrifice so much build volume plus its just changing the tool head versus building and programming an entirely new rig
Not quite because that allows up to 90degree overhangs, this essentially allows for a lot greater than 90 degrees (within reason). Also you’re always printing normal to the nozzle which will mean your layers are cleaner. Whereas on CNC kitchens video he mentioned that some flat planes won’t be completely perpendicular to the flat end of the nozzle which could cause some less than ideal surface finishes Edit- this is just my take though, you are right about the added complexity and less build space. 5 axis CNC machining centres run into many of the same issues, in terms of complexity of programming and the added risks of collisions, added cost, smaller working envelope vs a 3axis machine of the same foot print
I hate to be overly reductive but anybody* can slap a few extra axis on a 3D printer and hand craft a gcode file to print something and then just shrug and say "Your turn slicer developers". This isn't the first novel print setup to come along and ask for non-trivial contributions to make their stuff worth the plastic it was printed out of. *not everybody P.S. 6:19 THERE IT IS
This is why I love the 3d printer space, most industrial manufacturing processes slowly get more and more insular, more specialized tools, specialized software that is not at all user friendly, etc. open source designs actually get improved upon because so many people use then and give feedback in a very helpful community
So very true, I created a range of folding TPU receiver & antenna holders for quadcopters which are super easy to print and use, holding them securely in a way no other prints have before.
A lot of the design elements in them came from suggestions in a Facebook group after I posted the first iterations.
Resulting in them being recommended throughout the FPV drone community.
Very very cool. Definitely a long way to go but imagine the ability to add pseudo-isotropic skins to prints to strengthen layer z of a traditional cartesian print.
Will never take off until the software matures. This is the same problem with 3D Construction printing at the moment. Using Rhino and a grasshopper script is non-intuitive and a major barrier for most.
I don’t see why this couldn’t be added to Cura … this is basically taking away the bed movement and adding a extra axis . I mean it’s kinda amazing how good Cura is already I can see it eventually getting 5 axis slicing.
@@JoeWayne84 the bed movement is still there, and they add 2 extra axis
Wow! What a fascinating project. I love seeing the continued adaptation of modern CNC solutions into the 3D printing world. It makes the CNC technology reachable and achievable by the average home hobbyist. What is great about this is that the knowledge and skills one learns with this easily extends onto full scale, metal CNC machining. The 4th/5th-axis Trunnion solution you have designed looks solid. For sure the key moving forward will be the continued development of the slicing software to generate the tool paths. Being open source, I'm confident the geniuses in our open source world will add much value to this. Thanks for sharing your project.
it will probably help somewhat in starting to think about using 5 axes when thinking about manufacuring a part, but beyond that, additive manufacturing is sucj a fundamentally different paradigm to subtractive manufacturing, that there is not all that much overlap between the ways you have to think about manufacturing parts when using these technologies.
Not that I don't approve of course, but I think this is not quite the best use case scenario for this technology
That's amazing! I imagine you could use a technology like this in a normal design to avoid or minimize support structures. Very cool.
Yep. Imagine if you could print cylinders orthogonally to the z-axis by rotating the piece. Not only do you no longer need supports, but you eliminate the layer effect that you get from printing cylinders horizontally. The issue of course is that you really need to minimise the size of your build plate if you want to flip entirely 90 degrees. But I reckon that you could get most of the advantages with a 45 degree rotation.
This is using it in a normal (gantry) design. There is a lot of variety.
Fascinating how if you only concentrate on the object being printed, it moves like someone's holding & rotating by hand to work on it.
impressive build.
heavy software.
Thanks for sharing your inspiration 😊
Was there software in there somewhere? It sounded like they more or less made the g-code by hand.
@@npiperthey can only generate one type of path and are hoping the coding community can chime in on project.
Most impressive! I'm a Rhino 3D user, and know the basics of Grasshopper, but to create a whole slicer using Grasshopper is truly brilliant and intense work. might have to experiment with this! Thanks for sharing!
Interesting idea, but the $80 slewing ring bearing kills the BOM, and using an industrial grade bearing like that is pointless when the rest of your assembly is plastic. Swap that out for two $5 off-the-shelf large diameter bearings and a bushing, and it's instantly a lot more affordable.
Rhino (the CAD Software you need to run Grasshopper) is around 1000€ alone. Education Version is 200€.
Also $80 isn’t that much for a slewing bearing.
@@WurstPeterl arrrr harrr harrrrrrrr, there be ways around that, matey
@@krazislav dont destroy his innocence. Having people like him allows us to be us 🤣🤣
Pull Requests are welcomed.
This project is opensource, if you don't like somthing, you can modify it to match your needs.
Nice. I saw myself and friends in the background :P
This is the first video on the machine where it was really indicated that the 5th axis part is more vase-mode following a surface normal, which would make the slicing + inverse kinematics easier. General purpose would be very hard but should be doable with some work.
This makes a lot of the supports unnecessary and will allow the ability to print with more structural rigidity.Can't wait!!!
That was my first thought! Could allow for internal structures that weren't previously possible as well
And it works with any printer with the latest Marlin Firmware installed with extra axis support enabled, as the "U" axis. So anyone with a RepRap device (and a spare stepper plug) can enter the next dimension!
All the hardware is very straightforward. Software, tho.... particularly the slicing, has to be done in a commercial product
I want to know how we're kinematically understanding the machine, breakthroughs in 3D printing like this can add value to people building their own cnc machines. For example, I have a five-axis now that is not kinematically able to have code made. From fusion I can move all five axes but if I try to do an operation but kinematically I have to figure out how to write code for it
Unfortunately, fusion will not let you add machine, kinematics and generate the G-Code for you
Migrating to other softwares like solid cam would but that is undesirable
It is interesting to see people doing things like this
Been keeping an eye on this project for a year. Really tempting to build one, but as he said, Rhino license is expensive...
This is great. Another thing that can be great is to unlock the full protential of G-code and not use STL files. I want round circles, not 360 straight edges.
This is pretty cool. Its sad that you loose so much build volume and I kinda feel like a Delta style printer would have been a better choice
this is just like the "normal" CNC machine, just like a Haas VF3 compared to a Haas UMC-750, but each machine fits a different job, but if they made the rotary table/cradle more like a TRT100, then they might be able to reduce the size, and allow for bigger prints hopefully :D
It's hard to say that any part of this project is sad, it's just a consequence of every trunnion style 5 axis configuration. Every 3 axis machine build volume shrinks when the 5 axis setup is installed.
If its sad, help improve it then!
but why?? just because i guess :P
LinuxCNC supports 5 axis kinematics. Might be some food for thought.
Any BdoubleO100 fans here?
SHE GAMIN'!!!!!
This is so nice! And it not just a question about minimize support material, it also a way where you can prioritize different surface quality and (strength-) properties in the same oriented model! Also very lovely that you use a Prusa as ground for the project! That make it easy for a lot of other people to also built/upgrade at the platform they already have. Nice work!
Very cool. This could print almost anything, with no supports or infill and with "layers" in whatever orientation gives the best adhesion. As he said, the hardware was basically easy and the software is the tough part, as evidenced by the demos with simple 2D-paths extruded out and multiplied.
we need a tutorial about how upgrade our machines for use 5 axis manufacture
The software should be reverse engineered from industrial software like fusion 360Cam or PowerMill, or similar. Don't reinvent the wheel.
Slicing/CAM has always been the issue with anything more than 4x. It just requires a lot of manual programming and specific skillsets that most people aren't willing to learn.
Wow, this kid is taking the world places!
Great stuff. I was left wanting to see more things they printed with this 5-axis printer.
...And this is the next generation of 3d printers.. the 5 axis ones.
I have quite a lot of experience writing evolutionary algorithms which might translate well into path development for generating gcode for this.
why not turn the whole thing 90 degrees so you have more height on the spiny axis
😯Really cool project!
Especially using it a bit like a lathe could potentially wrap up the weak layer direction into cylinders. And one extra axis still.
For the propeller demo object it does the opposite though. As the blades are disjunct the chosen orientation weakens the propeller blades.
But it should be possible to still print overhang free but with way better layer orientation.
Hello Thomas, I'm a big fan and I have been for years. I was wondering if you had ever considered making one of these yourself. The designs are open source, after all. I'd be very curious to know how accessible this is, where it needs work, and your general impressions on it.
I love fdm tech as we don’t cut away scraps material but add when we want it. Also it can do what Normal cut mill turn CNC cannot do. Yeah the presenter is right.. hardware is not the problem. Software and slicers going 5D is a bit tough though nothing is impossible. Thanks for sharing 💕.
If that «axis- bench» is separated out it would be a great add on to all printers, probably delta would be the best, but i understand the slicer would probably require some rewrites, but a great concept!
мне кажется механике уделяется незаслуженно большое внимание, в то время как реальный интерес представляет Программное Обеспечение для нарезки
wouldn't that be called a Trunnion? Very cool
Oh my god, another variable to send things south.
As a mechanical engineer I look at that and think it isn't hard to make. We actually make stuff like that in industrial space all the time...
HOWEVER... 3D printing and how the slicing is done is nothing like what we do with machining or welding. In those we just set paths, and it works. However... Nobody is going to write a 3D object in pure Gcode. The problem isn't that it can't be done - it can be, I do it all the time. Issue is that additive manufacturing requires things like infill and different path properties, and along with that the extrusion volume calculations. That is the problem. The problem is software, and especially the slicing. We have solved the axis controls, and those controllers and equipment are available for cheap nowadays. We automate lots of things and retrofit many machines at my place of work. However we don't need to do the calculations that are done in additive manufacturing.
From an Imperial College of London to someone who evolved the next generation of 3D printers deserves hats off, when rest of the world is still stuck in same 3 axis from around 40 years of invention of 3d printing... actually he don't deserves the place where he is sitting, he invented 5 axis printing!!
I was wondering when he was gonna talk about this 😍
Do CNC machines need slicer too, is it just g code in different way?
Can't you use the same code from CNC 5axes mill just in reverse? Let's say we make a same size mill in cad as plastic being extruded in 3d printer, then in cad we have our work piece, our part and we just make our mill in cad mill away entire part just leave the base you are supposed to print on, a sphere or other shape that is not just flat so it uses all the axes?
Finished one 6 years ago, aluminium prices were cheap then.
It's working and prints with cobbled together G-Code.
Still no slicer to make some use of it. It will always be just a thing on the shelf:
- No slicers for it
- If there will be a slicer, it would take huge amounts of time to slice parts the way you want.
- Automating the Slicer to make it somewhat usable like 3-Axis slicers would take years, because there is no industrial interest.
- You go all the long to have a workflow and in the end you still have an FDM print, (of course it is waaay improved because of the layer oriantation) but it will never be as good as a SLS, Polyjet, which is getting cheaper too.
Really enjoyed the build, all machined out of aluminum, linear rails, small ballscrews, servos, tiny Harmonic Drives, 3 different sized heatbeds with quick change, quick change extruder with an custom hotend.
A few industrial cam systems support additive manufacturing these days. I'm looking at one right now on my laptop. Haven't tried the feature yet, though.
@@TheFeralEngineer which one were you looking at?
@@strongme80 esprit edge. Nx does additive also
Looks promising but there is a lot of software development needed before it is something that most people can use
I wonder if it could make printing helmets so much cleaner...
Very clever design... well done!
Would this technically only NEED to run as a 4 axis machine? Being as the gantry y axis doesn’t have to move anymore?
This is an awesome project regardless…
Ooooh, I wonder if this software could be converted for homemade CNC...... 😅
Thank you for sharing this and making one of my dreams come true :-)
Love their work and his enthusiasm
The hardware part of 5-axis 3d printer is not so difficult....the software, slicer is the much harder in fact
Its really hard to not watch it do its thing. That is amazing!
do it need a special slicer?
Most definetely!
He said you have to slice it in Rhino with Grasshopper. So yes!
This is more of a thinking exercise than a practical application of 3D printing. For freeform printing imo SLS is the tech, it needs to come down in price to thousands of dollars instead of ten thousands of dollars. FDM is crude and has too many fundamental limitations to be revolutionary.
Move the laser not the fiber, move the piece not the head. Interesting inovation.
you scared me with this title, I ll be back
I like this guy! Very smart
GOOD jop
WHAT THE SOFTWARE are you USE?
5X vase mode!
ERROR code 9 on mega 5x 5axis cnc care to help? please.
It's brilliant but yeah, the software lets it down
needs closed loop steppers or digital encoders to be fully ready for market
Build surface is so tiny though.
The problem I have as a Maker who might use OnShape is all of my data would be public. That does not work for me and there is no way I could ever afford one of their Pro subscription plans. So, I will not use OnShape for my 3D CAD projects.
incredible, truly incredible.
Well some day we will have 5 axis 3d printers with slicer software,... and fusion power. Not sure which we'll get first.
What the name of software controller?
This is cool
That's a heck of a lot of computation to maintain eucentricity!
How well will this be able to handle non-spherical profile type of prints?
For the curious, there is a guy here on RUclips using Grasshopper for 3D printing: @USSAWoodworking3DPrinting
Re: Onshape: That surprised me at 6:29.
:)
I wonder if the SKR 1.2 pro might work instead of the Duet3D (only ask as have one)
The slicer is still the hard part. :/
That’s really cool I want one
A great accomplishment from an engineering standpoint, but it has drawbacks also. Apart from the software to run it, the usability is also limited as the trunnion table and extended nozzle take up quite a large chunk of the available working area. It isn't going to be cheap to build, as you'll need some precision parts to minimise the mentioned absolute zero offset. Printed parts will not cut it I think, it'll require milling. Also there are only so many parts that will fit the relatively small remaining working area and benefit from not needing supports.
I for one would rather have an IDEX. Will work with free software, minimal loss of working area if at all, will let you print all of the showed parts 3 times the size and supports can be done in PVA if need be, to be able to wash them off and have crisp edges. Just two tone with PVA supports will be a challenge, but I'd rather occasionally paint some parts then have the significant size limitation.
In my opinion, the amount of viable user cases for at-home 5 axis 3d printing will be very limited.
Even in the industrial milling field the majority of machines is 3 axis still, for similar reasons.
Stefan from CNC kitchen showed something similar. Instead of adapting an existing printer I think an roboter arm would be the better approach.
5 pesos a que el chico es argento.
Fantastic!
nice !
Can I buy that product
Why the swing platform instead of the triple axle platform?
emmm..... how about you noshape video? 🙄
I still stand by the video and its messaging being correct and valid at the time and in the context it was uploaded in. Onshape has since been bought by PTC and they have moved more towards accepting and committing to free users.
Fusion turned out to not be much better in what they offer free users, with features coming and going seemingly at random. I'll be trying a couple more CAD tools in the coming months, but with Onshape's updated policies it is back in the race for me.
@@MadeWithLayers personally is what I use,nevertheless I have a education account myself. One free and open source option not so powerful but with same logic in the features and operations is salome-plataform.
Amazing. So pleased I am a subscriber!
Great!
that is good!
And what would you actually use it for ?
Very nice. Congrats!
Fps russia?
oh my god thats freaking cool
Sorry it's not a 5 axis, it's a 6 axis as the extruder counts as an axis.(X,Y, Z, U, V, and E) A normal 3d printer has 4 axis.
Holy hell, amazing
Is the software of the 5achses 3d printer in 2024 any better? How is this not the new way to make the hard parts like this? You can print wood, steal and so on🤔🫣 I need an investor asap....let's get it done 🎉
Excellent work!
Exited on the one hand, on the other hand do i wish for more software slicing optimisation. there are so many trickerys in GCode possible for Overhangs and stuff. maybe invest more in those things.
But how
⭐🙂👍
Wow👏
We can build it but there's no software so it wouldn't be useful at all
Thanks!
Thank you!
If Prusa don't pull these guys in house and throw money behind this.. i dont know man.. lots of 3D printing military application here
Is this the same concept as the rotating printer head from CNC kitchen? that would probably be a better option as you wouldn't have to sacrifice so much build volume plus its just changing the tool head versus building and programming an entirely new rig
Not quite because that allows up to 90degree overhangs, this essentially allows for a lot greater than 90 degrees (within reason). Also you’re always printing normal to the nozzle which will mean your layers are cleaner. Whereas on CNC kitchens video he mentioned that some flat planes won’t be completely perpendicular to the flat end of the nozzle which could cause some less than ideal surface finishes
Edit- this is just my take though, you are right about the added complexity and less build space.
5 axis CNC machining centres run into many of the same issues, in terms of complexity of programming and the added risks of collisions, added cost, smaller working envelope vs a 3axis machine of the same foot print
I hate to be overly reductive but anybody* can slap a few extra axis on a 3D printer and hand craft a gcode file to print something and then just shrug and say "Your turn slicer developers". This isn't the first novel print setup to come along and ask for non-trivial contributions to make their stuff worth the plastic it was printed out of.
*not everybody
P.S. 6:19 THERE IT IS