The Modules Compatibility Between Artisan & Snapmaker 2.0

Hi Makers,

We got a lot of questions regarding the compatibility between Artisan and 2.0 machines. We are still enhancing our FAQs and will publish them this Friday.
Regarding some frequently asked questions, I would like to answer in this post first. Later will add more components that are not mentioned here.

  1. Will the Dual Extruder Modules for old versions, for example the A line?
    Yes. We will offer the dual extruder separately for Snapmaker 2.0 machines on our online store.

  2. Will the quick swap be compatible with Snapmaker 2.0?
    Artisan’s quick-release components allow quick replacement of tool heads and work platforms, and require pre-installed quick-release male seats on linear modules and work platforms.
    The structure and sizes of Snapmaker 2.0 series are not compatible with Artisan, therefore Artisan quick-release components cannot be used on Snapmaker 2.0 series. We will share more details on this topic as there are many people care about this.

  3. Will the 200w CNC module be compatible with Snapmaker 2.0?
    Unfortunately no. Due to the high power of the 200W CNC module, the rigidity of the linear modules and the support platform of the Snapmaker 2.0 series is not enough to support its use.

  4. Can the current 10w laser be used on Artisan?


Will Snapmaker 2.0 actively reject the 200W module? Many users have reinforced their SM2’s by adding linear guides and a second linear module in X, so you might decide the 200W module at your own risk. But if SM2 firmware blocks the module, that would be a dealbreaker.


Pretty sure power draw is what they are referring to (as well as rigidity). 2.0 PS wouldn’t be sufficient. If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work, and they say it doesn’t work, how it that a dealbreaker?! You were going to buy an Artisan so you could use the CNC on your 2.0?!

My train of thought: The electrical tollhead connection of Artisan and SM2 seems to be the same. 200W electrical delivery is no problem for SM2 PSU. Attaching it to SM2 mechanically might be an issue, but let’s assume it has screw holes - they would be at the same positions as with the other modules - check. Remains: Firmware. If the Firmware checks: Hey, the 200W module will not work with the SM2, thus I will not allow you to use it, that would be a problem. And if you know what you do/enforce the SM2, the spindle might actually be OK.

What about the issue of rigidity. Those that attempt to use it on a on non-reinforced rail. Would be an issue. Doubt SM would want to assume that liability. Selling a item that could be used on a modified SM2, but causes issues on stock SM2. Doubt they’ll allow that, so you’re probably correct in assuming will be sw dslisabled.

As long as they keep their word about open source, the firmware is still on the github. Someone could go through the code for any such blocks, remove it, and build the firmware without that block. Likely going through recent merges would help solve this once released. UNLESS they stop updating the public github and only use private repos for future releases, which I’m sure would fly even further in the face of those of us who’ve spent a good amount of cash on promises.

The Original took a couple years before the firmware was offered as a .zip download. It was a git repo, with the .git/ directory removed, so no history available.

The V2 code base appears to have been built on the Original’s firmware, and wasn’t open sourced for at least a year after release (my recollection is a bit hazy). So I think the Original’s firmware should be in there if you go spelunking through the history (the git log goes back to 2011).

I’ve seen some forum posts that the public repo isn’t being kept up to date with recent firmware releases. I can’t verify that (I don’t have a V2), but it wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Even if the current firmware does block the module, it shouldn’t be too hard to clone the existing module and update the ID. I’m sure a community mod will be available, possibly even packaged up. But it wouldn’t hurt to go fork the repo , and maybe take a look at the dual-extruder-dev branch. :slight_smile:

I was talking to a friend about a dual extruder
and now I see we will have a compatible module for snapmaker 2.0 with a dual extruder


petg prints with soluble supports :smiley:

Fun trick that’s cheaper in the long run (considering how expensive it is and the special care needed for soluble filament) is PLA. Print in PETG with PLA support or vise versa. PLA and PETG do not stick to one another and will pop right off.

1 Like

So what happened to the promise of an upgraded/more powerful cnc on 2.0…this was promised during the Kickstarter

And what about the linear modules, will we be getting something similar in design and accuracy for the 2.0?

1 Like

Since a lot of people aren’t on FB for various reasons, I’ll post this here for their benefit.
Long post from Jade Wu about design decisions for upgrades to 2.0 and reason for creation of Artisan. Of particular interest is the paragraph about the XL cnc and their determination (which many of us became well aware of) that 2.0 design couldn’t handle any more powerful spindle.

Hello, Snapmaker owners, nice to meet you! I’m Jade. I’m from the Snapmaker team. I saw there are some discussions on the old users support worry and the compatibility questions. I would like to share some views on these topics and keep up the communication.

You are not only the owners of Snapmaker printers, but also important supporters of Snapmaker, and we value your needs and experience. From our development of the first-generation 3-in-1 3D printer - Original model, to Snapmaker 2.0, and now to the latest generation - Artisan, our original intention has not changed during the six-year journey: to continuously explore and develop high-quality desktop-level digital fabrication tools, so as to empower people to make something wonderful in the physical world.

Snapmaker 2.0 is a very popular project. Since its release in 2019, we have continued to absorb user feedback to continuously improve our 3-in-1 printers. At the same time, we are also conducting R&D work of its upgraded version modules. Rotary module, air purifier, 10W high-power laser module, dual-nozzle 3D printing module, and more, have been at the top of our product development priority list. Of course, while developing these expansion modules, we have not stopped exploring the design and development of stronger 3-in-1 printers. I believe that no one is more eager than us to apply the latest technology and the best manufacturing process methods to all our products. We’ve had a number of innovative projects internally, some of which have been very successful, but as is inevitable in all product development, some have made trade-offs, compromised, even terminated.

We have sorted out a compatibility list of Snapmaker 2.0 and Artisan. This list will be published within one day. I’ve shared a preview version in the comments under this post.

To put it simply, the modules that Snapmaker 2.0 (A, AT, F models) can support for upgrade are: rotary module, TMC2209 linear modules, air purifier, 10W high-power laser module, dual-nozzle 3D printing module, filament dryer, emergency stop button; and Snapmaker 2.0 does not support upgraded modules (while Artisan supports): 200W CNC module, Artisan linear modules, Artisan controller module, quick-swap feature (tool heads and work platforms) .

Therefore, many old users are concerned about whether Snapmaker 2.0 can support Artisan linear modules, quick-swap tool heads, quick-swap work platforms, and 200W CNC modules. Now let’s dive a little more into our main considerations when doing product design.

Artisan Linear Modules:

In order to greatly improve the performance of the machine, the cross-sectional section size of the linear module has been changed from 48mmx48mm to 50mmx70mm. When designing the linear module, we faced a dilemma: either meet high-performance requirements or realize SM 2.0 compatibility. The cross-sectional size of the linear module is mainly subject to two factors: one is the grinding efficiency, and the other is the size of the motor. The need to achieve greater torque at high speed means that we need to use a higher power/larger size motor; in addition, limited by the product weight target (try not to be overweight) and the desktop-level device size target (need to meet the personal desktop-level application scenario), when developing new products, we finally chose to design a new generation of linear modules with higher performance, rather than the same or fine-tuned Snapmaker 2.0 linear modules.

Quick-swap feature (tool heads and work platforms):

We have evaluated a quick-swap kit for Snapmaker 2.0, and the conclusion is: in terms of feasibility, it can only support the quick-swap tool heads at most, but cannot provide the quick-swap work platforms. However, work platforms need the quick-swap feature the most. We still could not get a satisfactory plan after various plan evaluations and cost calculations. We don’t want users to spend a high cost to buy quick-swap tool heads only, and still not be able to obtain a complete and excellent quick-swap experience. Therefore, we chose to give up adding the quick-swap feature to Snapmaker 2.0 printers.

  • The cost that the SM 2.0 user needs to pay for the quick-swap tool heads: the customized quick-swap kit for the Snapmaker 2.0 X-axis linear module and the tool heads.

  • The cost that the SM 2.0 user needs to pay for the quick-swap work platforms: replacing the existing base of the work platform (spider skeleton) to the one features quick-swap function, replacing the heated bed and print sheet with the glass build plate and the die-casting platform under the glass build plate. In addition, a customized quick-swap kit is required. All of these require high-standards of processing technology and increased production costs. When the market demand is small (the number of repurchasing users of a single module is limited), It means that the output is smaller, which further increases the production cost, and users actually need to pay a high cost for this. On the other hand, because it is impossible to provide an affordable product solution for users, the demand for users will also decrease accordingly, and it is inevitable to fall into a vicious circle of high cost on the user end.

200W CNC module:

The boundary condition of CNC machining capability on the SM 2.0 machine is not the tool head, but the work platform and linear modules. The rigidity of the linear modules of the Snapmaker 2.0 printers is not enough to support the long-term use of the 200W CNC. The expansion and upgrade costs that users need to pay for this are not equal to the performance improvements that users will get. Therefore, we do not offer this upgrade option to Snapmaker 2.0.

We also have some thoughts related to this topic, and would like to share with you, for example:

Why not make the work area of the new product the same as that of A350/A350T/F350?

  • We have always wanted to maximize the value of exploring 3-in-1 3D printers, and the 400mm cubic is the maximum value obtained through scientific Value Engineering / Value Matrix Analysis (value = functional value / cost) and multiple rounds of rigorous engineering prototype testing and verification design scheme.

Will Artisan come with the same modularity as Snapmaker 2.0?

  • Artisan has a certain degree of expandable, but it is different from Snapmaker 2.0 in the pursuit of modularity. When designing Artisan, we put “stronger performance” and “value/cost ratio” at a higher level priority.

Why don’t we release XL CNC router?

  • We have a product design for XL CNC back in 2021, the internal project name is C800, a single-function CNC router with a work area of 800mm x 800mm. The whole project lasted about 6 months and ended in failure. Product problems and boundaries of C800: It is difficult to guarantee the cost and flatness of 800mm x 800mm die casting piece. It is difficult to control product weight and product cost, and the rigidity of assembly cannot be 100% guaranteed by the user. The difficulty of the R&D is: We were not able to guarantee that the parallelism and equal height of the double Y could meet our standards.

Why don’t we release H Laser cutter?

  • While we are pre-researching XL CNC internally, we are also working on the productization of H Laser, whose internal name is L500. The L500 project also lasted about 6 months, and the final result was a failure. Main reasons: Inadequate value/cost ratio. High power laser cutter needs a enclosed environment of the whole machine. Only the linear module is used to build the product, and the product still needs to be enclosed by an extra shell. Then the aluminum profile of the linear module is wasted, which costs a lot. Moreover, the main requirement of the laser for linear motion is speed rather than rigidity. The linear module would have performance redundancy due to this reason. After repeated thinking, we believed that the value of upgrading the power of the laser module would bring the most benefits to SM 2.0 users. Therefore, we have provided the upgrade option of a 10W high-power laser module.

It’s a long post. Thanks for taking the time to learn about the details. Please keep sharing your feedback with us. We are preparing more and more official FAQ articles based on your feedback, which will be published very soon. Have a nice day! Make something wonderful.


That post is actually refreshing to hear a frank discussion of the limitations of the machine and the challenges of value engineering. Thanks for reposting that here. At least to me it builds confidence that there will be tangible improvements in the next iteration.


Thanks for sharing. I intended to share it in the forum. Then I saw your comments in the topic of Artisan pre-launch announcement. It made me feel down, and think deeply for a long while. I write a lot of notes, forward the words to the Artisan group discussion internally, tried to find out deeper reasons for not doing well. In short, I need to take a little bit more time to add more info to the backward compatibility of the new product. Before that, I would share the brief summary I made to the forum as I did it for the group. Hope that you can understand that these two posts are the same at this moment.

Update 1: Just created a new topic on this. We haven’t forgotten 2.0 owners! Provide some thoughts on the backward compatibility of Artisan

Snapmaker Support
Tell us about it.

Three Snapmaker 2.0 A250 s
3 enclosures
1 rotary module
I own

How long will all parts be held for maintenance parts in the future?
We need to be able to purchase parts in case of failure.

How long can Snapmaker provide maintenance parts (all modules, controllers, etc.)?
I am concerned about how long I will be able to purchase them when they fail.


Here’s a random query… What kind of sensor is on the dual extruder? The difference page lists the new 3d bed is PEI coated glass, which means the old induction sensor won’t work. So if it lacks that, I’m assuming it has to have a load cell to use the nozzle itself?

Correct , snapmaker have promote from begin better cnc module and now this news, maybe in china is normal this kind of promotion but in Europe is illegal and will face future problem because allot of users will feel unhappy about become obsolete and not more supported because snapmaker want get more money… please do not do same as apple to always upgrade to new and left the old machines and users in the shadows, after years of problems due economic and pandemic we ,users, deserve more respect.

yeah I know but i would like to minimize wastes with the supports
that’s why I want soluble supports ^^

Hey, The SM 2.0 firmware can’t recognize the Artisan CNC Module and will remind that the executive head is connected incorrectly. The wire port of Artisan can support max. 10A electric current, while the 2.0 supports max. 5A. If you use the 200W CNC on the Snapmaker 2.0, it can not reach its maximal power, but only 120W.

1 Like

Thank you very much for the clarification, fully understood! Is the 120W limit also true for the heated bed port?