Snapmaker Innovation Fund: what exactly was rewarded?
After reviewing fourteen awarded projects, I am deeply disappointed by the preliminary results. Too many awards lack a clear explanation of what the author actually contributed, what was tested, and what advantage was demonstrated over earlier solutions.
Below is my assessment of each project. The full report provides sources, code comparisons, technical findings and the limitations of the analysis.
1. multiACE
It deserves an award. What I dispute is its higher ranking over BMCU-Klipper despite documented reliability limitations and substantially higher module costs for fewer filament channels. Popularity is not a reliability test.
2. Full Multi Nozzle Printing
Printing with different nozzle diameters and some material-selection features already existed. The author added a layer-height planning mechanism, but that contribution and its verified results should justify the award. The inherited capabilities of the entire package cannot be presented as a new invention. Adding one extension to an existing feature is not what I would call innovation deserving an award in this competition.
3. AFC Klipper Add On
The demonstration shows four filaments feeding one U1 toolhead. It does not establish correct operation of the full configuration using the printer’s remaining toolheads. A broader claim requires a broader test. I hope the promise of full integration does not turn out to conceal an incomplete project, as with the published Sidecar package. So far, I am left with the impression that the “wow” factor is enough to win an award, while verification of functionality takes a back seat.
4. FOrcaSlicer
Another implementation of an existing surface-coloring concept, with its own perimeter controls, but also documented geometry limitations and slicing defects. Where is the comparison showing an improvement significant enough to justify an innovation award? An implementation of an existing feature with a modification? Are we seriously calling that innovation?
5. Bespok3d
A manager for installing add-ons developed by other authors. It has its own integration work, but the functions of the installed projects do not become the manager developer’s innovations. Even the “without SSH” claim leaves out the SSH connection required to deploy its service. An add-on for installing other add-ons, including solutions taken from the earlier Extended Firmware. I struggle to see the innovation that justifies an award.
6. Mini Skyline
An established application that converts a map into a model. Preserving street layouts and building positions does not, however, mean faithfully reproducing a city. I do not see award-worthy innovation in the results I obtained. To me, this is another author’s established idea in new packaging, with buildings resembling houses from an old Monopoly game. I tested several cities, including my hometown. I could hardly find a single building in its model that resembled its real counterpart—even in the shape of its roof. Instead of distinctive architecture, I saw a repeated template for building forms and roofs.
7. OrcaSlicer ImageMap
An earlier research method combined with reused Prusa and Pigment Painter components, plus the author’s own extensions. Those extensions should be evaluated for their actual value. The entire visual effect cannot fairly be credited to the entrant. We are awarding a project whose significant components were taken literally byte-for-byte from other authors’ work, including Prusa Research. Adding an original extension does not turn the whole combination into an original invention. I find that deeply disappointing.
8. Sidecar 16 Color MMU
A substantial award, yet the later public package remains incomplete, contains reproducible software defects and includes a U1 port that had not been run on the printer. Which complete, repeatably working version did the panel actually evaluate? To me, this is a phantom project: an impressive promise without a complete system in the published materials that users can reproduce and use for repeatable printing. From the beginning, I suspected it was an empty shell, and analysis of the released package only deepened my doubts. Where I come from, we say, “You are not punished for dreaming.” Here, apparently, you are rewarded for it. Before the results, the author had already scaled back development of the complete device and questioned the justification for producing it in its original form—yet the project received a substantial award.
9. Bambu2Orca
A later converter received an award while earlier converters addressing the same core problem received none. The claim that conversion runs entirely in the browser also conflicts with the examined client’s dependence on a private API. The project’s advantage and its evaluation need explaining. Other tools already did the same thing, yet this project receives the award despite the documented shortcomings. Why? What specifically justifies its higher assessment?
10. Kromacut
A free, open alternative to HueForge, with its own extensions. I have relatively few objections to the project itself—it can be useful. However, I do not see a demonstrated new method or an advantage explaining an innovation award. It is good that it exists, but in my view it is primarily a “poor man’s HueForge”: a free alternative to an established solution. That benefits users, but is it sufficient grounds for an innovation award?
11. Lumina Studio
A free alternative to an application already offered by HueForge + FlatForge, with its own approach to layer recipes and material profiling. I have relatively few objections to the project itself, and the photographs of the prints are impressive. To me, however, it is primarily a “poor man’s FlatForge”—a description of the free alternative, not the quality of its results. Useful software and impressive prints deserve recognition, but I would still like to know what specifically was considered innovative here.
12. MakerWorld to Snapmaker U1
A development using an earlier converter’s engine received an award while the engine author’s own entry was passed over. The use of earlier work is openly acknowledged and confirmed by comparison. What specific improvement justified rewarding the development while leaving its foundation unrecognized? I wonder how the author of that engine feels. Someone takes your work, develops it and wins an award, while your own entry receives no recognition. On their GitHub, you will find thanks and acknowledgment of your authorship. They, however, receive the money. An acknowledgment alone does not explain why the panel rewarded the development while passing over the work on which it was built.
13. OrcaFS NeotkoCM
A project publicly declaring official Snapmaker sponsorship also received an award in Snapmaker’s competition. It combines original extensions with inherited technology and ported changes. Both its innovation score and the safeguards ensuring impartial evaluation need a transparent explanation. This is where the matter becomes particularly serious. What exactly was rewarded, and what was already covered by Snapmaker’s earlier support? How many times can the same scope of work receive support and awards? Did this case actually concern a separate achievement? Without disclosure of the sponsorship’s scope and the grounds for the award, we cannot assess that. The organizer should clearly explain what it previously supported and what it subsequently rewarded.
14. UI Rework for Full Spectrum
Primarily a redesign of the panel and interaction with existing FullSpectrum features, following explicitly acknowledged OrcaSlicer and Bambu Studio conventions, with additional assignment-management operations. In my assessment, it adds little. Mostly cosmetic changes and usability improvements to a collaborator’s project, inspired by Bambu Studio’s appearance. A pinnacle of innovation, apparently. And another collaboration with a developer already connected to Snapmaker. What actually justified the award: originality, demonstrated benefit or an eye-catching panel redesign? The connections are documented; their effect on the evaluation needs explaining. With such a limited contribution, I find this decision difficult to understand.
My objection is straightforward: innovation awards should rest on identifiable original contributions, verified functionality and transparent evaluation. A feature list, an attractive demonstration or a new interface does not settle those questions.
My projects, coroNET OS 2 and SnapHeater-U1, received no award. That fact alone is not the basis of this objection. The basis is the documented discrepancy between the awarded projects’ claims, the earlier solutions they inherit, the scope of verified functionality and what the public explanation of the evaluation actually accounts for.
Full report in English:
If you disagree with a finding, please identify the specific point and provide evidence. I welcome substantive technical corrections and a meaningful response from Snapmaker.
Damian Borkowski
Tier 1 · 3 winners · $5,000 each
Tier 2 · 7 winners · $3,000 each
Tier 3 · 10 winners · $1,500 each
