I greatly enjoyed the Tested.com article @septimus39 posted. No big surprise on the needing to make compromises for usability and price point.
But I am struck curious if you have a specific compromise you really wish you hadn’t had to make?
Relying on their servers and proprietary formats. Seems so strange they’d avoid just having it interpret standard g-code. Did they implement some arcane NC language or come up with their own just to keep people from running it on the standardized code pretty much every other computer controlled fabrication machine uses?
No wired ethernet. Wish we’d worked that in.
Re: G-code, I wish I could tell you all the wonderful stuff that’s going to be possible over the years because we don’t have to make our machine communicate in a language that was specified (poorly) in the 50’s, but for now you’ll just have to take my word for it. : )
3 Likes
Don’t like g-code because it’s good but because it’s open and standard. It’s what made things like desktop fabrication even possible. Shoulders of giants and all that. Hope you’ll let others stand on yours!
Z-height. Current 1.5" limit makes engraving large objects and adding a (usable) rotating axis impossible.
Hopefully it will be possible to separate the top and bottom of the printer and print out a middle part.
4 Likes