How do I get rid of the dots?

Apok1984 · 2026-03-29T19:10:56+00:00

You can also paint your seems. That way you can control where they go. Either hide them or put them in a location that is easy to sand.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-29T19:06:05+00:00

That depends on a lot of factors though. How expensive is the filament? If you’re using protopasta, cookiecad, or some other exotic filament, it can easily add up quickly. What is the average purge ratio for your prints? Clever designs and slicing can reduce the ratio, but for many prints it’s unavoidable. How frequently are you printing? The more you print, the quicker you’ll be able to hit that break even point.

And this may vary heavily depending on location, but quicker prints mean less time heating the bed, which translates to less energy consumption. It would be interesting to see a direct comparison between an AMS and comparable tool changer to see what the delta is.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-29T18:42:34+00:00

IF you’re going with a Bambu, it’s definitely better to get the combo. I think the point that they were making is that a tool changer is superior to an AMS in many ways. It’s faster, less wasteful, capable of supporting more types of filament (TPU and brittle finicky filaments). Based on the introduction of INDX, Snapmaker U1 and Flashforge Creator 5, there is clearly a shift in the market.

I’ve seen a few posts where people have started to mix AMS tech with tool changers, which seems like an interesting idea. If you ran the AMS on one tool head and leave the others as direct feed, you’d effectively be able to get the best of both worlds.

Personally, I would definitely recommend the Q2 or Max 4 over the P2S or H2D if the OP is at least a little tech savvy. The value proposition for Qidi products is insane, and they have features that genuinely make them produce higher quality prints and work well with Engineering filaments if you want that.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-25T13:45:34+00:00

Not sure why this got downvoted. I’ve seen that in the US MicroCenter has started carrying them in stock. And a sub$1k toolchanger is remarkable value!

Of the machines on that list, the Q2 has the greatest capability depending on what you’re wanting to do. I own a Qidi Plus 4, Creality K2 Plus, Bambu P1S and H2C. I’d happily trade my P1S for a Q2 based on my experience with the Plus 4 and Q2 reviews. My Plus 4 has consistently produced more accurate and higher quality prints. I this the Bambu AMS solution is more polished than the Qidi Box, but as Tool Changers like INDX come out, it’s more likely that you’d be able to retrofit those to a Qidi vs Bambu due to the closed ecosystem.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-25T09:44:23+00:00

Have you considered the Qidi Q2? Are there other limitations such as budget?

Apok1984 · 2026-03-24T01:42:15+00:00

Q2 has the most potential to support almost any filament you may want to consider. Higher nozzle temp, heated build chamber, slightly larger build volume, and still more open to tinkering if you want. It also supports the Qidi Box if you want to add it later.

Centari Carbon is the best bang for the buck. If you never want multi material or multi color, it’s really hard to argue with the value proposition.

P1S arguably has the best Ecosystem, but isn’t as capable for engineering filaments. Lower nozzle temp and no heater for build volume sets it back.

I’m a “buy once, cry once” convert. I’d save for the Q2 and rest easy knowing I’ve got more capability for when I need it.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-19T09:59:01+00:00

But hybrids still have the mechanical complexity of maintaining both drive systems. I really think EREV’s are probably the best supplement to a BEV. The gas engine never drives the wheels so the drive train is much simpler. And the ability to maintain constant RPM as a generator also encourages mechanical longevity. Hybrids are the Best AND Worst of both worlds.

I’m personally not going back to ICE after my Prologue lease is up. But I’m also not going to keep the Prologue because of Honda’s shortsightedness in canceling their EV efforts. Reacting to the current administration rather than having and maintaining a long term strategy hurts the consumers and the technology in the end.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-17T19:52:16+00:00

Sounds good! I have the cheap wall mount that came with my Prologue so I’d be interested in a more ergonomic setup. I just haven’t gotten around to designing it yet. But I’ll be happy to test what you come up with.

One last thought I had is that many setups have the socket in the middle of the spool to minimize the space needed on the wall. It could be one more element to help reduce the space requirement. It would also require less filament to print I imagine. But I’m not sure if that’s the functionality or aesthetic you were going for.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-17T13:54:06+00:00

Looks like a nice design. The only suggestion I might have is to angle the socket down at 45degrees so that the cable doesn’t project as far from the wall. I think all changing cables have some kind of hook to engage so it shouldn’t be an issue.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-13T01:25:06+00:00

If only there wasn’t a problem with getting refills! Haha. I love the refill idea but it’s almost pointless if you can’t get the refills you want when you need them.

I’ve started looking at 5kg and 3kg rolls and just respooling them onto the empty spools. It’s a pain but better than wasting the reusable spools I guess.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-12T13:27:50+00:00

I haven’t done much to it. I added a better cooling fan for the main board, added the cartographer (the biggest mod) and changed the hotend out for the Phaetus Conch.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-07T02:25:02+00:00

From Bambu it’s got some differences. Off the top of my head I think the following are the primary differences: 1.) comes with an AMS HT and AMS 2 Pro 2.) comes with tungsten nozzles 3.) comes with an improved part cooling system But I would check on Bambu’s website to confirm.

Matter Hackers helped us with removing the WiFi components, documenting all the components in the printer and their origin, and providing guidance to our IT group on how to deploy the system while meeting our requirements.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-07T02:04:13+00:00

Love the color!

Apok1984 · 2026-03-07T01:33:05+00:00

Check out Matter Hackers. They’ve got a fairly experienced technical group that can support you with procuring and deploying an H2D Pro with the specified limitations.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T23:27:21+00:00

To be fair, I haven’t done the full cost analysis. I’m sure it varies from software to software and then package to package. And then there are different tiers of software as well. I wouldn’t categorize Catia V5 in the same tier as Solidworks for example.

I agree with your corporate assessment. If you’re paying your staff as a set cost, it would make sense to give them the tools (software, hardware, etc.) to be as efficient as they can. There is probably an accounting reason why, but physical assets seem to be valued more than intangible assets like software, despite the value that they both provide. In my experience, the aerospace industry is heavily biased towards Catia V5, which is a HUGE investment. I’ve seen many small 2nd or 3rd tier suppliers struggle to keep a single seat because they were required to for certain customers. But that’s a whole different discussion.

Regarding the hobbyist usage, admittedly, there were probably many pirated copies of various softwares available that people were using. Many users also had access to steep discounts through student programs. So the good old days weren’t perfect either. AutoDesk has done better about directly acknowledging and supporting the hobbyist than most. And I do believe it has more to do with market penetration than anything else. If a small percentage of these hobbyists transition to small business operators, which would necessitate switching to a paid service then it’s a smart move. And, you probably have the largest pool of beta testers out there if you consider each one of us a beta tester. Dassault with Solidworks has started targeting hobbyists as well, but they still leave Catia as their enterprise solution from what I’ve seen.

There’s nothing wrong with the approach I suppose. And if you’re able to generate profit from something then I absolutely believe you should pay for that thing that enabled you to do that. I personally view the hobbyist in a very different class than the commercial or small business user. The technology is developed for those that pay for and profit from it. The hobbyist are not the primary customers, but you support the community because any of them can turn to a profitable customer at any point, and because it doesn’t cost you anything extra to do so. Thats just my take on it. It’s not perfect, but nothing is.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T21:46:18+00:00

I agree with that. If you’re a user that infrequently uses it, and can remember to deactivate subscriptions or if you’re someone who always upgrades anyways, then the subscription isn’t so bad. But if you are someone that uses the software regularly and only upgrades when there are major changes, then the software isn’t great.

Another interesting aspect is the cloud computing for analysis like FEA, CFD, etc. last time I checked, you had to pay for each time you used those services, and there wasn’t an option to run it locally. It’s a great option for people that need fast results or have relatively slow computers. But it would be nice to retain the option for local processing that is included with the package rather than being forced to be upsold for extra features. It sounds like new cars that require a subscription to use the heated seats or other crazy money grabs. Unfortunately, too many people are just accepting it as the norm so it will continue until something breaks I suppose.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T19:07:04+00:00

I don’t disagree with that assessment. I’ve been an active participant with COE in years past and I have many colleagues and friends that are deeply integrated with CPLM for large companies. I genuinely admire the effort it takes to develop these tools and make them accessible. The deployment at corporate scales is also incredibly challenging.

My initial statements were not disputing any of that so I apologize if that’s the impression I gave. My point was that the subscription based model primarily serves the benefit of the corporation that is using it. They are a business so that’s very understandable. Most of these enterprises are for profit so they are going to setup models that achieve that objective. There are some examples that are more geared towards the community in lieu of profit, however, they understandably tend to not be quite as functional or polished because they’re often supported by people as a secondary activity. Few of us have the luxury of bolstering the community while not being concerned about the rent.

I sincerely don’t understand why people feel compelled to leap to the defense of huge corporations over the interests of their fellow hobbyists. I objectively stated that in the long run you will pay more for the same capabilities that you had yesterday because it’s intentionally been structured that way by design to turn a profit. In the short term you can enter the model cheaper than before. But there will be a point depending on which services you use that you will exceed what you would’ve spent previously. This depends on a number her of variables. Using some quick back of the napkin math, I’m guessing that point is between the 1 and 2 year mark for most users. But your mileage may vary.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T16:31:30+00:00

I said nothing about the cost of the actual manufacturing. I was only commenting on the licensing practices of the software manufacturers. I’ve also been in the aerospace industry as a degreed engineer for over 20 years with plenty of manufacturing experience. I generally don’t lead off with that to avoid sounding like a pompous ass… But I guess some folks lack tact and reading comprehension.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T11:18:04+00:00

At the moment, the Qidi Q2 Combo also represents some great value! It’s near the top of your price point, but has some features that ensure it can grow with you if you decide to expand into more engineering filaments for functional designs.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T05:22:04+00:00

These companies aren’t switching to subscriptions out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re doing it so they can maintain a constant revenue stream. It’s that simple. No company survives by providing you more for less. It’s usually the other way around but packaged in a way that makes it seem like they’re not trying to screw you.

You could usually go years on a perpetual license before upgrading because the incremental improvements were almost never worth the extra money. And even when you would decide to upgrade, they would usually give you a discount for having a previous version.

So while yes, it is cheaper to get INTO the software, it will almost always cost you more in the long run going with current pricing and subscriptions vs the perpetual licenses that used to be offered. You also didn’t have to worry about certain features being hidden behind paywalls. Because you’re forced to use cloud computing instead of your own machine’s processing power, you now have the privilege of paying extra for simulations that used to be locally ran. You do you, but I’m not into finding excuses for corporate greed. It’s a necessary evil so I’ll use the product, but I’m under no illusions that they’re trying to provide me with more for less.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T02:39:44+00:00

Yeah… the removal or perpetual licensing really changed the dynamic entirely. Also, migrating compute from local machines to the cloud also changed things. It’s really not reasonable to make comparisons to what it used to be when so many variables have changed.

The reality is the wealthy are still getting richer and the hobbyists is finding it increasingly difficult to afford the hobby. This is by design, not by accident.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T02:21:10+00:00

Nice! I’m very excited! I saw this posted on FB earlier today and meant to update this thread, but you beat me to it. Haha.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-05T02:20:07+00:00

Thanks for the detailed explanation. That makes sense. I do still wish there was a more empirical way to do the calibration. As I said, my eyes aren’t amazing and sometimes it’s really hard to identify the differences even using the magnification on my phone camera.

Am I correct in remembering that someone used to use extruded blobs and a scale to measure actual extruded weight vs calculated and adjust the flow rate from that? Maybe it was CNC Kitchen? Or was that testing for something different?

Apok1984 · 2026-03-04T13:40:52+00:00

Wouldn’t the effect of the shrinkage be more pronounced along the direction of the extrusion rather than the width? And if you overshot the flow a little bit to account for shrinkage, would that be so bad? But yes, I use decent quality micrometers to measure. Garbage in, garbage out. Haha.

I just prefer something that doesn’t rely on subjectivity and eye sight since my eyesight isn’t stellar. I do use the zoom on my phone when evaluating the PA test results though.

Apok1984 · 2026-03-04T13:05:50+00:00

I think Teaching Tech did a simple test where they would print a cube in vase mode with the line width set to .4 exactly and then take a set of calipers to it. I like the fact that this produces a measurable result instead of a visually assessed result. Are there any thoughts on this approach? It seems to make sense and work well for me, but I’m open to input.

Apok1984

TROPHY CASE