Hi, you kind of degraded all the other printers because of the text, the x1 carbon did not even print the text and you said it was the best. I know you SEEM to think all the other parameters out weigh this decision but you gave an immense amount of weight to the text in your OWN analysis .
Totally agree. He seems to fall into the trap of “there is no bad text because there is no text” which is not something a reviewer should be tricked by. We need an objective comparison. This video also would have greatly benefited from a close up camera so we can see everything he’s talking about. I couldn’t see a single thing he called out so I just had to take his word for it? And no print time.
I agree this is far from a fair comparison. The best prints achieved from each printer need to be compared and that includes many hours of test prints and adjusting settings.
While Prusa Mk4 had excellent text. Really for a fair comparison, it needs to be done with the best prints achievable on each printer. Not just pressing default settings and doing one print. The process is doing several different prints and adjusting settings until details are the best. Also most overhangs start needing supports around 80 degrees. Also Prusa has the new arc circle slicing for doing overhangs.
Great to see all 5 Printers in one comparsion. Thank you for all the effort you alread have put in creating this video. Since it is about print quality I would love to see a "round 2" with equal nozzles and each printer set to the suggested setting by the manufacturer. The .3mm settings for the MPrusa MK are way too much for the installed coolings system. Actually they suggest to print .15mm which changes print quality significantly. Slow print speeds can be compensated by more printers but weak quality is not solvable by investing more of the same. So I am curious if you could give it a try and get the best quality possible out of those five! :-) Thanks in advance!
As Marcos has already pointed, using 0.6 nozzle on one of the printers where other use 0.4 is not a fair comparison. But this is not the only problem with this test. In the ideal conditions for such tests to be as accurate as possible, you need to have as little differences as practically possible, leaving out only mechanical/firmware to affect the print quality. The nozzles need to be the same (not just the same orifice width, but the material and potentially the brand/type, I know this is virtually impossible with non-standard hotends like Bambu for example), the filament needs to be the same (or multiple spools from the same manufacturer opened just before the print), the slicer needs to be the same with as close settings between the printers as possible. I would argue that with certain things like print speed/acceleration you would dial them down to match the slowest printer on hand, so if you're measuring the print quality only, you measure what fast printers can do if they slow down (which usually results in better quality).
Thank you for your well thought out input! We will surely take this into account for our future videos. Clarifications that should have been more prominent in the video (Our apologies): - We used fresh rolls of Yellow Hatchbox PLA from the same order for all of the printers. - A fan was circulating air in the room to ensure consistent air temperature. - Slicer presets were selected to come as close as possible to 0.3mm layer heights (although this does not fix the line width problem) - Slicer presets were used to ensure that we represented the manufacturers intended use for the printer. - None of the printers were pushed past 100% speed - The Prusa XL had a 0.6mm nozzle, which is default for the printer presumably to match the scale of the printer.
they are evaluating the printers how the manufacturer ships them and how they perform out of the box, showing what the default user experience is. if the manufacturer delivers a poorly tuned machine or poorly tuned software, it will do badly in this test. sort of like how car reviewers review cars how the manufacturer ships them, and not with hyper mega performance tires and hours of ECU tuning on a dyno. prusa made a huge deal over their decision to ship with a 0.6mm nozzle, we see the results here.
@@waldo6347 I agree it makes a difference. So does the fan brand and quality. If you are testing out of the box, which appears to be the test here, these are the results. Not everyone is going to switch out nozzles on a regular basis or even tune their printer. Im sure you are skilled enough to spend 2 hours tuning for the specific print, filament and swapping print specific parts can you get a better result likely across the board. That is great for you, but that isn’t true of everyone. Comparing tuned vs untuned is a valid test to run, but it doesn’t make the untuned test invalid.
Oof yeah credibility goes out the window with this single fact alone. Also which printer had a bigger nozzle so we understand fine detail may be missed.
This is not a useful comparison. Different size nozzles can't be compared. Especially for thin towers 😂 Fatter nozzles don't bridge well so need more top layers.
So you just looked at the prints. There's no checking of dimensional accuracy or strength. Also why not put the same size print nozzle in all the printers? I'm not sure what the point of this test was.
Spot on for the Bambu - I have had problem with it slicing STL files with text and most of it not showing up. I noticed step files seem to do a bit better. The method I have used to correct this has been to use the bambu slicer built in text tool. Took a few tries to figure it out but it makes beautiful crisp text. I have even done side by side with modeled text and using the tool on the same part. Night and day difference.
i'd rate overhang as one of the least important of those tests... when designing parts it's one of those things that can be avoided and one of the easiest things to fix (with Mk3 simply rotating part orientation since it has good cooling only from like 1.5 sides for that) also using 50% bigger nozzle and blaming printer for small gaps on top layer.... not only that, i'm questioning what's in the settings, those gaps are too (in XL case) big from what i can see
If I understand correctly, a printer that has not printed the font is in first place? Even if the other stuff is very good and the overhangs are really impressive, that's a reason for a significant devaluation. At least like the ghosting on the Prusa XL. But otherwise an interesting test with great printers. Thank you for that.
I dont feel this was a good unbiased test. You should have used the same size nozzle in every printer. How can you not consider the extruded text? If one printer can do it well, then why cant the others? The x1c had the same nozle size as the mk4 and completely missed features. I think thats more important than an extra 5deg of overhang.
Not sure how you rank a printer that failed to print any of the text as the best, when it completely failed one of the requirements. Also curious to know what settings were used, as you need to adjust your settings properly when doing bridging and overhangs, and know what to do in the slicer software. There are settings for those.
I appreciate the subjective out-of-the-box experience; default hardware, default settings, and (hopefully) default slicers. But... The MK3 is an ancient and soon to be deprecated printer. The MK4 and XL have an upcoming firmware update with Load Cell and Input Shaping. The comparison is fair because those printers are for sale - but those facts were not mentioned. I would like to see the same test after the firmware updates. The printer that failed to print detail for 1st place?
I would be willing to bet that those most upset and bothered by this test are all Prusa owners. Hmmm lets see.....Old tech vs. new tech. Sorry Prusa you missed the boat.
Prusa is the creator of the boat what is wrong with you? What you people are doing to Prusa is exactly what the power companies did to Nikola Tesla, they stole all his work and left him penniless when he was the creator.
It was great to see a comparison of these currently popular printers, even if it couldn't be a perfect test. Optimizing a slicer for one feature over another can make a large difference, although using standard settings from each manufacturer was probably as good as the test could be. I would have liked to have seen the print times for each of these parts. It seems that the two corexy printers (K1 and X1C) were fastest and produced the best prints.
Yup, though the XL is a CoreXY too. So CoreXY both on first and last positions. One could also say : the best results came from the machines NOT running a Marlin-based firmware. The Creality runs a "modified Klipper". The Bambu's run an in-house firmware with heavy Klipper influences.
If I understand well, you put in first place the print that gave zero text but good overhangs and no stringing ? Well... for my point of view, this print is an absolute fail. Overhangs that start to fails at 75/80° is not a big problem and a little bit of stringing is not even a problem, but no text when there is multiple text on the model IS a real problem. It clearly fails to print some parts ! When viewing this video, I thought that it will be ranked as the worst print. Maybe followed by the Prusa XL mainly because of ringing (the rest is because of the .6mm nozzle). For me the MK4 should be in the top 3, at least 2nd.
Def think this needs to show us the slicer settings as well. I've found especially text can be modified/different between slicers (like the ones where it didn't even try to extrude) Especially on a test like this that doesn't include speed and we are just looking for quality, using the same slicer with same settings the whole way through would help alot, with the exception being retraction settings on a bowden vs direct drive extruder since that would be unfair
I call bullshit lol, you knew that was the Bambu and you purchased one and are now sour :P It didn't even print the text, that's an automatic fail in the first place... It had one job! lol
Hmmm I'd have liked more focus on the print settings you used for each. I have the X1C and Prusa MK3S and optimizing my prints for each always requires tweaking different settings. Eg. what speed did you print at? It's no secret that printing at super high speeds on the MK3s will drastically reduce quality, whereas the X1 Carbon excels at high speeds
@@girenloland lol exactly? That's why I would have liked this info in the video or the description :) Because I also don't know what the stock settings are.
Yeah, he kinda left out a lot of info for each. Which version of firmware, which version of printer profiles was installed into slicer, what were the profile settings in slicer, what was the usage on each of these printers, was proper maintenance done on them all, where the nozzle all new, were any of these kits that he put together, what filament was used, room temperature, humidity, etc; it would have been nice if we could have seen the prints under proper lighting on a slow rotating display table with a very clear image. ( I hate it when people try to hold up a print in the camera with bad lighting, shakeup hands and auto focus on the fritz).
I was listening to the video and not watching it. I know the text was on the screen why not just say print one identify printer. Second thing why not identify what nozzles were used on the printers. Not a good comparison if the nozzles are different size and you are trying to say the text on print is not good. Your comparing very good printers and it does not seem like this was a good video of comparison.
Glad to see a comparison of all these machines! Little bit of feedback, the order that you discussed all the machines felt all over the place, and it was hard to keep track as to what each machine did as the video went along. With the time-lapse at the start, I saw the order was PXL, K1, X1C, Mk4, Mk3s. So I had that as an order in my head. Starting with the Mk3s next was fine, I figured the video was going to go right to left, but the next machine was the K1, so not even 5 seconds after leaving the Mk3s, I was questioning if it was actually the PXL I was just listening about. The order the machines were talked about ended up being 5,2,4,3,1. Overall it would have been easier to follow along if the machines were discussed either in an order that they were displayed, or in a brand/age order, like Mk3s, Mk4, PXL, K1, X1C, or something like that which grouped the prusas together in some kind of order
I have both the Bambu X1 carbon and the Creality K1 and the print speed and quality are both very similar, but I would agree the Bambo does print slightly better.
I have all of these he review except the two latest prusa. Now the bambu vs Creality I believe would come down to profile tuning to get them equal. But for now, I have not had any problem with my printers.
This is weird, you said the Bamboo didn't even try to print the text, but you ranked it the best? I get that the print is otherwise the best, but if it cannot print the text, WTF?
Here are some rough estimates of print times when I run the "all in one 3d test" in each manufacture slicer. Pla filament .2mm layer height, .4 nozzle except Prusa XL *Prusa slicer* Generic PLA and Prusament filament give similar times. Prusa Mk3(Quality) 4hr 47min Prusa Mk4(Quality) 4 hr 3 min Prusa MK4(.2mm alpha firmware) 2hr 8 min Prusa XL 3hr 17 min *Bambu Studio* Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 58min Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 42min With better text with arachne wall generation checked only adds a min or 2. Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 59min Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 44min *Creality print* Creality K1 1hr 49 min
Question: Were the slicing parameters and resolution as close to apples to apples? Also, do you get the PLA to the same dryness level or use the exact same roll for the quality comparison?
really need to test with the same roll of filament for all printers, using the same nozzle, and show slicer settings and versions also losing text completely is pretty bad; i think discarding details is way worse than minor stringing, which could literally be due to the filament you were using
It would depend on what I'm trying to print really, but if the thing I'm trying to print NEEDS text on it the printer that didn't even try to print it would be useless.
Big slicing error from your side. Prusaslicer sets Arachne as default generator, that's why text is being shown in prusas and k1, i guess you're using prusaslicer for it too, and I'm guessing you are using bambu studio in x1c and didn't enable it. That's the only reason it's showing no text. If you use classic generator in the prusas or k1, they also don't get text printed.
These tests need to be run after decent tuning. The machines are most likely all not fully tuned in various areas of extrusion as well they should be. This is an out of the box stress test review not necessarily a direct comparison of each machines true ability
I'm curious what the overall print time was for each. I'm going to wager the X1-Carbon not only printed the best but the fastest. Adjust all of the Prusa to the same print time as the X1-Carbon and see what the results are afterwards. I'd be surprised if you had prints to even compare.
While I appreciate trying to compare the 'out of the box' experience here, I think it's very hard to show "Which Prints Best" from a single torture test model. IMHO, a torure test doesn't show "which prints best" at all- it shows which can accomplish specific tasks (bridging, etc.) to check blocks on a list. There are many variances in all machines shown- from nozzle size, to physical format, to slicer settings for particular filaments "OOTB" without tuning- that are going to allow each to accel at different things. And each of those different things will shine of different style tests. There is a reason why Graphics card reviews run multiple software bench marks on cards (PassMark, 3DMark, Cinebench, etc.) to reach a conclusion on a cards capabilites. Someone doing word processing or browsing the web will have a completely different experience that someone editing video, rendering CAD files or playing games. But even then, all those do is check blanks on a list- none of those take into consideration the subjective opinion of the person sitting infront of monitor actually using the graphics card and seeing the final output on their monitor. Please consider re-evaluatiing these using more tests and real world models to get a better picture of how each preforms in more areas, and to be able to make a genuine speculative conclusion.
Great comparison video. I’m about to buy my first printer, so this has been invaluable as an example. Certain issues are some I think I could design around and others are best to be avoided, so thanks for highlighting everything. Keep it up
I think the bambu X1 didn't have fine dental enabled in its slicer. Its not on as default and its under advanced. I was surprised as well as I didn't see the point in having it off. It didn't try and do the text as it didn't see it or put it into the Gcode.
Wenn man testet und vergleicht, gehören da auch gleiche Voraussetzungen zu. Das heisst, alle Drucker müssen die gleiche Nozzle haben. So wird die Druckqualität und Druckdauer verzerrt und ein Test unmöglich. Der XL muss ausgenommen werden.
Would really like to see you review the Neptune 4 when it comes out! They are claiming 500mm/s print speed and 250mm/s recommended. If all works as it should, it would be a cheap alternative to the ones you reviewed.
I appreciate that you have assembled these printers and are attempting to provide an objective comparison of print quality. Although you may have done this, you didn't explicitly state it, leaving me as a viewer and an enthusiast with lingering doubts about whether this was an apples-to-apples comparison. Printing parameters are crucial, as are factors like nozzle size, print bed, ambient temperature, and filament condition. In the future, I recommend employing a scientific method to assure viewers that you're doing your utmost to maintain an objective comparison. Another approach could be to make a concerted effort to extract the best quality from each printer. This would inevitably take longer to produce but would more closely reflect an enthusiast's experience. Alternatively, the focus could be shifted towards a beginner's experience where you simply use the default settings provided by the slicer and the included PLA sample material that comes with each printer. Regardless, I sincerely appreciate your effort.
out of the box experience is important, especially for beginners to 3d printing. this is what was demonstrated here. some companies are spending more effort on a well tuned out of the box hardware and software experience, others not. the results are shown here.
On the Bambu it let Bambu Studio repair the the file does it print better? I found that most files from printable have to be repaired on the Bambu labs printer for it to print correctly.
@@elchavode6479 I have both the do not repair the same way bamboo labs has their own code for doing the repair, which is different than the services that Prusa spicer uses. I’ve done the same file and walked inside of both, and they are not the same file after three pair is done. I do not know what Bambu is doing different but it does a better job then the other test for yourself don’t take my word for it. The reason I asked was I did some metric and English screw and bolt sizes that have the small print and once I did the repair I was able to print the very detailed small print with no issues. That’s the reason I asked if you repair the file and then just printed your test again see how much is improved. I come to the same conclusions with the items I was printing the first version printed crappy and then I repaired it and it printed great just as your test showed and the only thing I did to fix it was repair the fine in Bambu Slicer. And then be completely honest I’m new to the 3-D printing. I’m trying to understand a lot of these things I’ve had a pronoun for almost 3 weeks. I have bought a couple other prayers, and if you use their software also in the past three weeks, I am a glutton for punishment, but I figured that was the best way to completely understand. It was learned how all the major 3-D printers work if I did it the same time I could understand what was different between them. I have a better understanding what gave me the best performance on printing different things so normally the first time I print something I am running on several printers, the same file and then the ones that turn out bad I go into the slicer and repair the image and see if it improves. The only thing I’m not doing at this time is printing from liquid. I’m strictly doing filament and this go around. I wonder if it’s a bad idea with some of the issues up and fuck you with but only time will tail. Thanks for your video and your input. I found it very helpful.
@@Marcos-tj8nk this is a decision prusa made with the xl, we see the results here. most people disagreed with prusa's decision but they shipped it anyway.
@@TMS5100 I think it was a good decision, it shows in the speed. The XL finished at the same time as the K1 (and still has no input shaping) and also the print quality was good (except for the small print). But it is necessary to clarify that this loss of quality was due to the size of the nozzle, not the printer.
I am happy to see a blind-ish test. I am extra happy to see Prusa in 5,4, and 3. After SO long, the much anticipated XL and MK4 cannot touch a Bambu or Creality offering in that upper-level hobbyist category.
And yet all the other machines are using what Prusa created and is still open source. The other companies use Prusa’s work in a close source, yeah nice work. I like the Way you bash The original creators so you can get ahead using other peoples hard work.
It’s supposed to be a realistic test as if you used all the printers out of the box. If prusa uses a 0.6mm nozzle (which they claim barely affects print quality), it doesn’t need to be changed to 0.4.
Really useless comparative conclusions. not only were the nozzles not the same but there is no presented proof that the same slicer and / or all slicer settings were identical for each printer. Also the conclusions are based on one person's subjective visual evaluations. If you want to help Nick, do this again and do it right.
When observing print quality, most would consider the premier evaluation tool one's subjective visual evaluations. I'm sure you think that's wrong too. Let us know when you're done with your comparison.
@@garyhjones true. But as stated, the comparative data presented is very superficial. And, the nozzle size difference is everything! He rates the Bambu #1 even though it failed on the text / fine detail and rates the XL the worst immediately after saying different nozzle sizes aren’t a fair comparison; literally negating the whole purpose of the video. I’ve already spent way too much time with this useless “shootout”.
Hi, you kind of degraded all the other printers because of the text, the x1 carbon did not even print the text and you said it was the best. I know you SEEM to think all the other parameters out weigh this decision but you gave an immense amount of weight to the text in your OWN analysis .
I agree. Loosing model features is worse than a bit of stringing.
Totally agree. He seems to fall into the trap of “there is no bad text because there is no text” which is not something a reviewer should be tricked by. We need an objective comparison.
This video also would have greatly benefited from a close up camera so we can see everything he’s talking about. I couldn’t see a single thing he called out so I just had to take his word for it?
And no print time.
I agree why print text if you don’t consider it if printing fine details this would be very important.
I agree this is far from a fair comparison. The best prints achieved from each printer need to be compared and that includes many hours of test prints and adjusting settings.
So the Bambu didn't print any of the text but is number one....., I want my 9:15 back please.
While Prusa Mk4 had excellent text. Really for a fair comparison, it needs to be done with the best prints achievable on each printer. Not just pressing default settings and doing one print. The process is doing several different prints and adjusting settings until details are the best. Also most overhangs start needing supports around 80 degrees. Also Prusa has the new arc circle slicing for doing overhangs.
Great to see all 5 Printers in one comparsion. Thank you for all the effort you alread have put in creating this video. Since it is about print quality I would love to see a "round 2" with equal nozzles and each printer set to the suggested setting by the manufacturer. The .3mm settings for the MPrusa MK are way too much for the installed coolings system. Actually they suggest to print .15mm which changes print quality significantly.
Slow print speeds can be compensated by more printers but weak quality is not solvable by investing more of the same. So I am curious if you could give it a try and get the best quality possible out of those five! :-) Thanks in advance!
As Marcos has already pointed, using 0.6 nozzle on one of the printers where other use 0.4 is not a fair comparison.
But this is not the only problem with this test. In the ideal conditions for such tests to be as accurate as possible, you need to have as little differences as practically possible, leaving out only mechanical/firmware to affect the print quality. The nozzles need to be the same (not just the same orifice width, but the material and potentially the brand/type, I know this is virtually impossible with non-standard hotends like Bambu for example), the filament needs to be the same (or multiple spools from the same manufacturer opened just before the print), the slicer needs to be the same with as close settings between the printers as possible. I would argue that with certain things like print speed/acceleration you would dial them down to match the slowest printer on hand, so if you're measuring the print quality only, you measure what fast printers can do if they slow down (which usually results in better quality).
Thank you for your well thought out input! We will surely take this into account for our future videos.
Clarifications that should have been more prominent in the video (Our apologies):
- We used fresh rolls of Yellow Hatchbox PLA from the same order for all of the printers.
- A fan was circulating air in the room to ensure consistent air temperature.
- Slicer presets were selected to come as close as possible to 0.3mm layer heights (although this does not fix the line width problem)
- Slicer presets were used to ensure that we represented the manufacturers intended use for the printer.
- None of the printers were pushed past 100% speed
- The Prusa XL had a 0.6mm nozzle, which is default for the printer presumably to match the scale of the printer.
they are evaluating the printers how the manufacturer ships them and how they perform out of the box, showing what the default user experience is. if the manufacturer delivers a poorly tuned machine or poorly tuned software, it will do badly in this test. sort of like how car reviewers review cars how the manufacturer ships them, and not with hyper mega performance tires and hours of ECU tuning on a dyno. prusa made a huge deal over their decision to ship with a 0.6mm nozzle, we see the results here.
I think it’s reasonable comparison as long as the recommended configuration is used if the intent isn’t to heavily mod.
@@anteck7goat It isn't. .6 nozzle vs .4 is a hardware difference that matters in these detailed prints.
@@waldo6347 I agree it makes a difference. So does the fan brand and quality. If you are testing out of the box, which appears to be the test here, these are the results.
Not everyone is going to switch out nozzles on a regular basis or even tune their printer.
Im sure you are skilled enough to spend 2 hours tuning for the specific print, filament and swapping print specific parts can you get a better result likely across the board. That is great for you, but that isn’t true of everyone.
Comparing tuned vs untuned is a valid test to run, but it doesn’t make the untuned test invalid.
4:21 -- This one has NO text .... and that is rated the best printer. Is this a frikin joke? next time just put a big sticker paid promotion!
Oof yeah credibility goes out the window with this single fact alone. Also which printer had a bigger nozzle so we understand fine detail may be missed.
This is not a useful comparison. Different size nozzles can't be compared. Especially for thin towers 😂 Fatter nozzles don't bridge well so need more top layers.
Also printing thin layers increases print quality.
So you just looked at the prints. There's no checking of dimensional accuracy or strength. Also why not put the same size print nozzle in all the printers? I'm not sure what the point of this test was.
Spot on for the Bambu - I have had problem with it slicing STL files with text and most of it not showing up. I noticed step files seem to do a bit better. The method I have used to correct this has been to use the bambu slicer built in text tool. Took a few tries to figure it out but it makes beautiful crisp text. I have even done side by side with modeled text and using the tool on the same part. Night and day difference.
Much easier fix. Use Arachne as wall generator and that's all. It's being used in this video for all printers but the x1c
So a test of quality but in the end it was a test of who has better overhang angle.
i'd rate overhang as one of the least important of those tests... when designing parts it's one of those things that can be avoided and one of the easiest things to fix (with Mk3 simply rotating part orientation since it has good cooling only from like 1.5 sides for that)
also using 50% bigger nozzle and blaming printer for small gaps on top layer.... not only that, i'm questioning what's in the settings, those gaps are too (in XL case) big from what i can see
If I understand correctly, a printer that has not printed the font is in first place? Even if the other stuff is very good and the overhangs are really impressive, that's a reason for a significant devaluation. At least like the ghosting on the Prusa XL. But otherwise an interesting test with great printers. Thank you for that.
fake test
Hoping the ghosting (if that's actually a problem) on the XL will be fixed with input shaping when that releases.
I dont feel this was a good unbiased test. You should have used the same size nozzle in every printer. How can you not consider the extruded text? If one printer can do it well, then why cant the others? The x1c had the same nozle size as the mk4 and completely missed features. I think thats more important than an extra 5deg of overhang.
Not sure how you rank a printer that failed to print any of the text as the best, when it completely failed one of the requirements.
Also curious to know what settings were used, as you need to adjust your settings properly when doing bridging and overhangs, and know what to do in the slicer software. There are settings for those.
I appreciate the subjective out-of-the-box experience; default hardware, default settings, and (hopefully) default slicers. But...
The MK3 is an ancient and soon to be deprecated printer. The MK4 and XL have an upcoming firmware update with Load Cell and Input Shaping. The comparison is fair because those printers are for sale - but those facts were not mentioned. I would like to see the same test after the firmware updates.
The printer that failed to print detail for 1st place?
I would be willing to bet that those most upset and bothered by this test are all Prusa owners. Hmmm lets see.....Old tech vs. new tech. Sorry Prusa you missed the boat.
Prusa is the creator of the boat what is wrong with you? What you people are doing to Prusa is exactly what the power companies did to Nikola Tesla, they stole all his work and left him penniless when he was the creator.
It was great to see a comparison of these currently popular printers, even if it couldn't be a perfect test. Optimizing a slicer for one feature over another can make a large difference, although using standard settings from each manufacturer was probably as good as the test could be. I would have liked to have seen the print times for each of these parts. It seems that the two corexy printers (K1 and X1C) were fastest and produced the best prints.
Yup, though the XL is a CoreXY too. So CoreXY both on first and last positions. One could also say : the best results came from the machines NOT running a Marlin-based firmware. The Creality runs a "modified Klipper". The Bambu's run an in-house firmware with heavy Klipper influences.
If I understand well, you put in first place the print that gave zero text but good overhangs and no stringing ?
Well... for my point of view, this print is an absolute fail. Overhangs that start to fails at 75/80° is not a big problem and a little bit of stringing is not even a problem, but no text when there is multiple text on the model IS a real problem. It clearly fails to print some parts !
When viewing this video, I thought that it will be ranked as the worst print. Maybe followed by the Prusa XL mainly because of ringing (the rest is because of the .6mm nozzle). For me the MK4 should be in the top 3, at least 2nd.
He used the wrong settings. Arachne on the bambu makes text just as good
Prusa can now do circular arcs for overhangs in 90 degrees. There are so many different settings to do in the slicer to achieve a better print.
prusa cope hard on this comment section 🤣👌
Def think this needs to show us the slicer settings as well. I've found especially text can be modified/different between slicers (like the ones where it didn't even try to extrude)
Especially on a test like this that doesn't include speed and we are just looking for quality, using the same slicer with same settings the whole way through would help alot, with the exception being retraction settings on a bowden vs direct drive extruder since that would be unfair
He used default settings
I call bullshit lol, you knew that was the Bambu and you purchased one and are now sour :P It didn't even print the text, that's an automatic fail in the first place... It had one job! lol
Hmmm I'd have liked more focus on the print settings you used for each. I have the X1C and Prusa MK3S and optimizing my prints for each always requires tweaking different settings. Eg. what speed did you print at? It's no secret that printing at super high speeds on the MK3s will drastically reduce quality, whereas the X1 Carbon excels at high speeds
As he said, he used stock profile provided by the manufacturer
and the details of those are...?
@@3dprintdogs How would i know?
@@girenloland lol exactly? That's why I would have liked this info in the video or the description :) Because I also don't know what the stock settings are.
Yeah, he kinda left out a lot of info for each. Which version of firmware, which version of printer profiles was installed into slicer, what were the profile settings in slicer, what was the usage on each of these printers, was proper maintenance done on them all, where the nozzle all new, were any of these kits that he put together, what filament was used, room temperature, humidity, etc; it would have been nice if we could have seen the prints under proper lighting on a slow rotating display table with a very clear image. ( I hate it when people try to hold up a print in the camera with bad lighting, shakeup hands and auto focus on the fritz).
I was listening to the video and not watching it. I know the text was on the screen why not just say print one identify printer. Second thing why not identify what nozzles were used on the printers. Not a good comparison if the nozzles are different size and you are trying to say the text on print is not good. Your comparing very good printers and it does not seem like this was a good video of comparison.
Text would have came out a lot better(or at all) if Arachne was enabled.
Excellent test, thank you. How did the print times compare between the printers?
Glad to see a comparison of all these machines!
Little bit of feedback, the order that you discussed all the machines felt all over the place, and it was hard to keep track as to what each machine did as the video went along.
With the time-lapse at the start, I saw the order was PXL, K1, X1C, Mk4, Mk3s. So I had that as an order in my head. Starting with the Mk3s next was fine, I figured the video was going to go right to left, but the next machine was the K1, so not even 5 seconds after leaving the Mk3s, I was questioning if it was actually the PXL I was just listening about. The order the machines were talked about ended up being 5,2,4,3,1.
Overall it would have been easier to follow along if the machines were discussed either in an order that they were displayed, or in a brand/age order, like Mk3s, Mk4, PXL, K1, X1C, or something like that which grouped the prusas together in some kind of order
I have both the Bambu X1 carbon and the Creality K1 and the print speed and quality are both very similar, but I would agree the Bambo does print slightly better.
I have all of these he review except the two latest prusa. Now the bambu vs Creality I believe would come down to profile tuning to get them equal. But for now, I have not had any problem with my printers.
This is weird, you said the Bamboo didn't even try to print the text, but you ranked it the best? I get that the print is otherwise the best, but if it cannot print the text, WTF?
Also, it had the same size nozzle. That seems like a correction is in order
Another sponsored video sorry but it is not realible
Here are some rough estimates of print times when I run the "all in one 3d test" in each manufacture slicer.
Pla filament .2mm layer height, .4 nozzle except Prusa XL
*Prusa slicer* Generic PLA and Prusament filament give similar times.
Prusa Mk3(Quality) 4hr 47min
Prusa Mk4(Quality) 4 hr 3 min
Prusa MK4(.2mm alpha firmware) 2hr 8 min
Prusa XL 3hr 17 min
*Bambu Studio*
Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 58min
Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 42min
With better text with arachne wall generation checked only adds a min or 2.
Bambu Lab X1C with generic pla filament profile 1hr 59min
Bambu Lab X1C with Bambu filament profile 1hr 44min
*Creality print*
Creality K1 1hr 49 min
Question: Were the slicing parameters and resolution as close to apples to apples? Also, do you get the PLA to the same dryness level or use the exact same roll for the quality comparison?
They all seem to have been sliced at default with their respective slicers.
really need to test with the same roll of filament for all printers, using the same nozzle, and show slicer settings and versions
also losing text completely is pretty bad; i think discarding details is way worse than minor stringing, which could literally be due to the filament you were using
Looks like all prusa users hating you 😅
Cool, having a Prusa MK3+ and a Bambulab X1C that prints equal or worse after recent firmware updates - I'm thinking of switching back to a MK4.
You should have announced the printer used at each test rather than just saying "the next one". 'The first printer we used was....
How has no one else made this video, genius and EXACTLY, and I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR AT THIS VERY SECOND!!!!!!!!!🍀🙏🙏🍀🙏🙏🍀🙏🍀🍀🍀
It would depend on what I'm trying to print really, but if the thing I'm trying to print NEEDS text on it the printer that didn't even try to print it would be useless.
Big slicing error from your side. Prusaslicer sets Arachne as default generator, that's why text is being shown in prusas and k1, i guess you're using prusaslicer for it too, and I'm guessing you are using bambu studio in x1c and didn't enable it. That's the only reason it's showing no text. If you use classic generator in the prusas or k1, they also don't get text printed.
Wait! You didn’t kiss the Prusa butt! How dare you. The great printer good Prusa will take away all your filament!😢
These tests need to be run after decent tuning. The machines are most likely all not fully tuned in various areas of extrusion as well they should be.
This is an out of the box stress test review not necessarily a direct comparison of each machines true ability
I'm curious what the overall print time was for each. I'm going to wager the X1-Carbon not only printed the best but the fastest.
Adjust all of the Prusa to the same print time as the X1-Carbon and see what the results are afterwards. I'd be surprised if you had prints to even compare.
While I appreciate trying to compare the 'out of the box' experience here, I think it's very hard to show "Which Prints Best" from a single torture test model.
IMHO, a torure test doesn't show "which prints best" at all- it shows which can accomplish specific tasks (bridging, etc.) to check blocks on a list.
There are many variances in all machines shown- from nozzle size, to physical format, to slicer settings for particular filaments "OOTB" without tuning- that are going to allow each to accel at different things. And each of those different things will shine of different style tests.
There is a reason why Graphics card reviews run multiple software bench marks on cards (PassMark, 3DMark, Cinebench, etc.) to reach a conclusion on a cards capabilites. Someone doing word processing or browsing the web will have a completely different experience that someone editing video, rendering CAD files or playing games. But even then, all those do is check blanks on a list- none of those take into consideration the subjective opinion of the person sitting infront of monitor actually using the graphics card and seeing the final output on their monitor.
Please consider re-evaluatiing these using more tests and real world models to get a better picture of how each preforms in more areas, and to be able to make a genuine speculative conclusion.
Great comparison video. I’m about to buy my first printer, so this has been invaluable as an example. Certain issues are some I think I could design around and others are best to be avoided, so thanks for highlighting everything. Keep it up
These are all bad choices for a first printer. You need to start with a simple cheap printer.
Interesting that there is no perfect print. Even the best in the test has some major issues
I think the bambu X1 didn't have fine dental enabled in its slicer. Its not on as default and its under advanced. I was surprised as well as I didn't see the point in having it off. It didn't try and do the text as it didn't see it or put it into the Gcode.
Where is this at
Wenn man testet und vergleicht, gehören da auch gleiche Voraussetzungen zu. Das heisst, alle Drucker müssen die gleiche Nozzle haben. So wird die Druckqualität und Druckdauer verzerrt und ein Test unmöglich. Der XL muss ausgenommen werden.
Would really like to see you review the Neptune 4 when it comes out! They are claiming 500mm/s print speed and 250mm/s recommended. If all works as it should, it would be a cheap alternative to the ones you reviewed.
Thanks for your honest review. Looks like I'm getting a Creality K1.
chinese are paying for ads a lot huh. hey chinese dudes, i’m not buying your damn x1 printer
I appreciate that you have assembled these printers and are attempting to provide an objective comparison of print quality. Although you may have done this, you didn't explicitly state it, leaving me as a viewer and an enthusiast with lingering doubts about whether this was an apples-to-apples comparison. Printing parameters are crucial, as are factors like nozzle size, print bed, ambient temperature, and filament condition. In the future, I recommend employing a scientific method to assure viewers that you're doing your utmost to maintain an objective comparison.
Another approach could be to make a concerted effort to extract the best quality from each printer. This would inevitably take longer to produce but would more closely reflect an enthusiast's experience. Alternatively, the focus could be shifted towards a beginner's experience where you simply use the default settings provided by the slicer and the included PLA sample material that comes with each printer. Regardless, I sincerely appreciate your effort.
out of the box experience is important, especially for beginners to 3d printing. this is what was demonstrated here. some companies are spending more effort on a well tuned out of the box hardware and software experience, others not. the results are shown here.
Great video. I really like the fact that its a blind test. Wpuls love to see other print comparisons like models and functional parts.
On the Bambu it let Bambu Studio repair the the file does it print better? I found that most files from printable have to be repaired on the Bambu labs printer for it to print correctly.
That is a feature of prusa slicer not added by Bambu
@@elchavode6479 I have both the do not repair the same way bamboo labs has their own code for doing the repair, which is different than the services that Prusa spicer uses. I’ve done the same file and walked inside of both, and they are not the same file after three pair is done. I do not know what Bambu is doing different but it does a better job then the other test for yourself don’t take my word for it. The reason I asked was I did some metric and English screw and bolt sizes that have the small print and once I did the repair I was able to print the very detailed small print with no issues. That’s the reason I asked if you repair the file and then just printed your test again see how much is improved. I come to the same conclusions with the items I was printing the first version printed crappy and then I repaired it and it printed great just as your test showed and the only thing I did to fix it was repair the fine in Bambu Slicer. And then be completely honest I’m new to the 3-D printing. I’m trying to understand a lot of these things I’ve had a pronoun for almost 3 weeks. I have bought a couple other prayers, and if you use their software also in the past three weeks, I am a glutton for punishment, but I figured that was the best way to completely understand. It was learned how all the major 3-D printers work if I did it the same time I could understand what was different between them. I have a better understanding what gave me the best performance on printing different things so normally the first time I print something I am running on several printers, the same file and then the ones that turn out bad I go into the slicer and repair the image and see if it improves. The only thing I’m not doing at this time is printing from liquid. I’m strictly doing filament and this go around. I wonder if it’s a bad idea with some of the issues up and fuck you with but only time will tail. Thanks for your video and your input. I found it very helpful.
@jerrygaguru they probably changed the original code or stripped it wrote their own.
And what was the print time for each machine?
XL has a 0,6mm nozzle?
Yes, the Prusa XL has a 0.6mm nozzle out of the box.
@@GannonMakerspace well i think that's the reason why it's in the last place
@@Marcos-tj8nk this is a decision prusa made with the xl, we see the results here. most people disagreed with prusa's decision but they shipped it anyway.
@@TMS5100 I think it was a good decision, it shows in the speed. The XL finished at the same time as the K1 (and still has no input shaping) and also the print quality was good (except for the small print). But it is necessary to clarify that this loss of quality was due to the size of the nozzle, not the printer.
🌺 promo sm
Proud of you folks... you have come a long way...
I am happy to see a blind-ish test.
I am extra happy to see Prusa in 5,4, and 3.
After SO long, the much anticipated XL and MK4 cannot touch a Bambu or Creality offering in that upper-level hobbyist category.
I agree an out-of-the-box test is great. Being extra happy that a brand is in last place is kind of pathetic.
And yet all the other machines are using what Prusa created and is still open source. The other companies use Prusa’s work in a close source, yeah nice work. I like the Way you bash The original creators so you can get ahead using other peoples hard work.
great video!!! love it!!! 😘👍
Great review!
I would like to know the speed settings for each as they would definitely effect quality. It seems the prusa printers were slowest and worst quality.
He used default settings
Nice test 👍 subscribed
Warning to all viewers, this test is absolute garbage since those printers are compared with totally different nozzles.
prusa made a decision to ship with 0.6mm even though many objected to it. this is the result and i think it's going to hurt prusa in the long run.
It’s not absolute garbage. The only thing that would really affect is your text. Chill out.
It’s supposed to be a realistic test as if you used all the printers out of the box. If prusa uses a 0.6mm nozzle (which they claim barely affects print quality), it doesn’t need to be changed to 0.4.
Well done. Nice presentation. Honest opinion. Decent test.
Really useless comparative conclusions. not only were the nozzles not the same but there is no presented proof that the same slicer and / or all slicer settings were identical for each printer. Also the conclusions are based on one person's subjective visual evaluations. If you want to help Nick, do this again and do it right.
When observing print quality, most would consider the premier evaluation tool one's subjective visual evaluations. I'm sure you think that's wrong too. Let us know when you're done with your comparison.
@@garyhjones true. But as stated, the comparative data presented is very superficial. And, the nozzle size difference is everything! He rates the Bambu #1 even though it failed on the text / fine detail and rates the XL the worst immediately after saying different nozzle sizes aren’t a fair comparison; literally negating the whole purpose of the video. I’ve already spent way too much time with this useless “shootout”.
how is this a fair test if one printer has a 0.6mm nozzle lmfao
prusha
PRUSHA!!
dummy
No PRUSA DUMMY!…