Is the Snapmaker basically trash for 3D printing?

@C.Harris there are so many inaccuracies in your statement, that we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Glass is a liquid, a physical fact. Ask any Chemistry professor, Physics professor, or someone who actually makes glass. And your generalized statement on flexible build plates, UGHHH!

If you’re will to spend a few hundred dollars on a custom aluminum platform (what is below the build plate), go for it. However, I would try to level the existing platform as best as you can first, and use the 11x11 auto-level. Aluminum expands/warps a lot, but if you can get that down to < 1.0mm across the entire build plate, the auto-level (a.k.a. mesh leveling) should be able to handle the rest. Once they fix the firmware, this will be more a moot point, as we’ll be able to get the mesh leveling of the build plate while heated.

You have the existing plate, and just need to ensure that the replacement plate has matching contact and mounting points. You might even be able to get the exact measurements from @Edwin , if you ask nicely :wink: .

P.S. Always use an auto level that has odd numbers. Why? Because it means that there will be a reading at the exact center of your build plate. Even numbers will not probe the exact center.

1 Like

This reply is not conducive to a good discussion. I would like to know the inaccuracies re. the comments on flexible build plates.

And your statement is? I’m not going to waste my time correcting HUGE inaccuracies made by someone else. Sorry, but not sorry.

Glass is an amorphous solid and does not flow over time.

By strict definition, glass is a liquid, as it does not have a crystalline state, and it’s form in fact does change over time. There are discussions on giving it a different classification, but they are only discussions, as described here:

Solid or liquid? Researcher proposes a new definition of glass (phys.org)

Interesting.

Are you thinking the time frame for deformation is relatively quick? If float glass that starts out acceptably flat but transitions at some point to becoming unacceptably flat, are you thinking that’s more elastic deformation or ‘flow’ plastic deformation. I always assumed it was due to the elastic properties, but I haven’t looked into much.

Would flipping the glass like a mattress counteract any plastic deformation if that is indeed the case?

There is long term deformation, and elastic deformation as you describe. The elastic deformation is primarily what we are concerned about here, as it is the immediate effect and is by far greater than the long term deformation.

That being said, the long term effect isn’t as long term as many people believe, as the infamous Hubble Telescope has proven. The replacement lens, which replaced the defect lens, is changing in shape exactly as they predicted, but it doesn’t affect the accuracy. I don’t know the time scale, but they recalibrate to the changes periodically. Because it is in space, the changes are predictable.

P.S. In regards to your question about flipping it like a mattress, probably not. Why? Because the deformation would need to have perfect mirrors in order for that to work. :wink:

The state of glass, like the article you reference eludes to, is a debated topic. Whilst glass displays some liquid like attributes, such as their molecules having the ability to shift due to their lack of a stable crystalline structure, at ambient temperatures the movement of the molecules is so slow that there is no practical effect when you consider the timescale and application.

The hubble telescope’s lens has an optical function, therefore variations in flatness/shape on the order of millionths of an inch will have a practical effect on its function. By comparison, in 3D printing variations on the order of thousandths of an inch are where you might see a practical effect on the printing process.

Clearly from your replies to brent you are capable of reasoned discussion so I really dont know why your reply to me was filled with such animosity… its a forum, people will present opposing points of view…

Id be interested in what else was wrong with my original statement, im always happy to learn!

I’ll throw in that plastic is also an amorphous solid, so if glass is reclassified to liquid then plastics would be as well, however according to the linked article their argument is that it is neither a solid nor a liquid, but something else. I’d argue that the term “amorphous solid” encapsulates these properties and that this is the reason that we have such a classification but I digress.

Regardless, significant short-term deformation should not realistically occur unless the temperature is above the glass transition temperature, which is several hundred degrees Celsius for soda-lime glass (a very common type). An example of this occurring is leaving a PLA print in a hot car and gradually becoming a blob. It doesn’t ever truly melt, but softens in the heat and slowly flows. If flow does occur at a lower temperature, it is extremely subtle. As noted by @C.Harris the misconception of extremely old windows flowing is false, and instead is due to the flawed manufacturing processes of the time. Realistically, deviations visible to the naked eye have not occurred even on glass that was produced hundreds of years ago.

I’ll also add that the small amount of flow deformation that may occur also happens in metals, which are (typically) crystalline solids. Again, this is not significant to everyday purposes unless the material is exposed to elevated temperatures, often very high temperatures if no external stress is applied other than gravity.

If anyone would like to continue this discussion further I would be happy to make a post in the off-topic section to debate and talk whilst also avoiding cluttering this thread further.

I’m a total noob and I’ve had no issues. I love it! Prints beautiful 3d stuff. Adhesion is perfect!!!

2 Likes

I am glad that you have good experiences with Snapmaker 2.0.

We have been collecting users’ feedback from different channels and been devoted to make this machine more stable.

Cheers
Edwin

Yes sir!! I’ve had no issues at all. I jumped right in with Snappy (A350), knowing absolutely nothing about 3d printers or printing. The packaging was excellent, the instructions were perfect and easy to follow, and the craftsmanship of this machine is impeccable. It prints beautifully and my friends think I’m an expert (this machine is so wonderful it makes me look good). Great job to the entire Snapmaker team. You all created an amazing product. I could not be happier with my Snappy!!

(I realize you didn’t ask for all that, I just can’t say enough good things about it!)

Thanks and have a great night!

Tracey Capehart

My SM has been gathering dust for a couple weeks. Part of that is just Spring keeping me busy outside. I am also a bit disappointed with the performance of the SM, or possibly with 3D printing in general - this is my first (and likely last) 3D printer.

Prints have visible layer lines and occasional blobbing, some prints split along layers (though that may be the specific filament), and all prints are out-of-spec in regards to hole diameters and such.

I know now that I have to spend a good bit of time calibrating the SM to get results that I consider satisfactory, and that is one of the reasons why it is gathering dust. I just have too many other things to do that are of higher priority than tinkering with a plastics-extruder. Originally, I bought the SM to have a 3D printer that didn’t require much tinkering, and because of the CAN bus. What I ended up with is basically the CAN bus, and even that uses nonstandard cable connectors.

@Edwin its good to hear that you take feedback serious and for me the 3D printing is not too bad but not out of the box good! You have to improve the bad frame its too unstable and and seems like the production of it is it too bc i heard so much differences between the level issues of people

I bought it for the sole purpose of its multi functionality. I am more practiced with CNC and had already bought Vectric Aspire as i have 2 other CNC machines, a Shapeoko and an X-Carve. However I wanted to have one in my office for little projects and after fiddling around with the post processor and some tweaking of it I’ve got Aspire tuned to the 2.0 A350 really really well. I haven’t tried laser yet, but am currently learning to do my own 3d models and am printing the second half of my first design of my own from scratch.

WITH ALL THAT SAID – I find that the 3D printing function is actually quite user friendly as long as you read, learn, and fully understand the basics of 3D printing. I prefer the screw driven design over belt driven, I’m more of an accuracy over speed type of person. Screw designs are by their very nature slower than belt designs but deliver far better prints. Belt designs have a lot of play, kind of like how your belt on the front of your vehicle’s engine obtains a little play and wear over time.

Be patient, and keep learning. I have an Ultimaker S5 Pro which is supposed to be one of the best on the market and I’ve had the Snapmaker print just as high quality prints as my ultimaker with very thorough tuning.

Learn the machine diligently, each machine is different and has its quirks but become familiar with YOUR machine and learn its quirks and you will be able to get it tuned to they way you want. Also what filament are you using? Has it absorbed moisture and become wet? Print quality most of the time isn’t necessarily the machine, especially if you have properly leveled the bed and done the E-Step calibration. Both of those are crucial for any 3D printer. Even my Ultimaker, which is quite high priced, had to do e-step calibration. I’ve yet to hear of a printer that you just set up straight out of the box and get the best results, it takes tuning and patience.

Lastly, with it being a 3-IN-1 machine, it’s not designed to be the best at everything and does have an annoying inconvenience of bed warping when heated but thats physics, a much thicker and more expensive build plate would be needed to remedy this which would drive the cost up more, but if you tune it right it will be fine. “Skilled at many, master of none” comes to mind… and for those other machines that cost 500-700 like you say, sure they COULD print better (the opposite is also true, it goes both ways) but will also require tuning and calibration and are only 3D printers. Other 3-IN-1 machines (there aren’t many) that I’ve seen aren’t as well suited as the snapmaker. 3-IN-1 is kind of a niche at the moment and not very many companies make them. The Snapmaker is an all metal frame which is what caught my attention and others are not. I’ve also seen some rip off designs of the Snapmaker at lower prices but I don’t know what their quality is like and am not willing to find out.

1 Like

I’m of the same mind. I’ve never actually successfully printed anything on it. I’ve made suggested heating or adherence adjustments with no luck. 7 item sample size but now it just sits there. I really wanted the CNC and laser pieces but given the changeover work, i probably should have done a printer and a separate device.

1 Like

I think it prints fantastically and this is my 3rd printer.

At first I was annoyed that Luban didn’t have a “horizontal expansion” setting, but now I’m pretty sure that the software does it automatically.

Most printers start the center of the outside layer CENTERED on the line of the outside of the model. 0.4mm nozzle gives ~0.2mm expansion. I have been designing and printing bolts and nuts and things that snuggly fit together with no issues. Honestly my only issue is when I forget one part was printed on the SM, and another was on my X-MAX, and the X-MAX part won’t fit because I haven’t perfectly dialed it in yet.

Great printer. Laser is cool but weak, and I have yet to try the CNC, but I’m also not really interested until I get a rotary module!

(I hope I can get an answer soon about my damaged heated bed wire. wink wink)