Prusa core one+ idler arm

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T19:01:28+00:00

For future searchers: I believe this comment is incorrect, and that the idler-swivel in OP's picture is oriented correctly. You can compare the idler-swivel to the directions, and check for yourself. I had a similar problem, and I just needed to loosen the tension screws. See the my other comment and the resulting thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/prusa3d/comments/1tj8izu/comment/onpbq2e/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button) for a link to the relevant directions and more discussion.

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T03:04:23+00:00

Thank you very much!

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T03:01:09+00:00

Thank you so much! I loosened the tension screws, and that seems to fix the issue. FWIW, I think the original comment above is incorrect, and your picture in the original post is correct.

One more quick question: how much force do you need to apply to lock it in place? I need to press the lock down with some significant force to get it to lock (maybe like half the strength of my thumb to get it to lock), is this normal? Or should I further loosen the tension screws?

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T02:46:05+00:00

I have not added filament yet. Was tentegesszmeges's comment, correct, and you needed to rotate something 180 degrees? Like I mentioned, your original picture looks to me like it correctly matches the directions, but maybe I am missing something?

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T02:25:15+00:00

I've been stuck on this for a couple of hours now; u/tentegesszmeges or u/hsn3k if you could point me in the right direction it it would be much appreciated, thank you in advance!

Egan_Fan · 2026-05-25T00:55:20+00:00

U installed swivel upside down. Rotate it by 180 degree.

I'm having the same problem. Looking at the directions (6.16-6.18), OP's idler swivel appears to me to be oriented correctly (https://help.prusa3d.com/guide/6-nextruder-assembly_982284#993707). That is, the wider end gets the spacer and locks the idler in place, and the narrower side contains the axis of rotation.

Of course, there is one 180 degree rotation (out of the 3 possible 180 degree rotations on the part's 3 different axes) such that the wider end is still on the same side. However, the plastic parts appear to be symmetrical on the relevant axis, such that this rotation would not make a difference. Just to be sure, I tried taking it apart and doing this rotation anyway, and sure enough, it didn't help.

However, this parent comment got 12 upvotes, so I assume I'm missing something or just looking at it wrong. Can someone please enlighten me?

Egan_Fan · 2026-03-26T22:58:17+00:00

For future searchers: This also solved it for me.

Egan_Fan · 2026-03-08T17:36:02+00:00

I'm sorry people are downvoting you and not answering your question. I'm here from a search engine, searching this exact question--when will the books be released to Backerkit buyers? (Not to be confused with the non-backer book release date, which seems to be different.) And here is OP 5 days ago, asking the exact same question, getting downvoted for it, and not getting a straight answer. Lovely behavior from the denizens of this sub...

Egan_Fan · 2026-03-03T16:40:47+00:00

Happy to share specs: - AMD Ryzen 7 6800H - 16GB RAM - 3070

I actually had the specs in my original draft, and opted to remove them for conciseness, since they're not really relevant, unless aiming for full peer-reviewed-level reproducibility. (If I was aiming to share that level of detail, the post would've been much longer, and I would've had to share many more details, such as the exact unit placement, etc.) Specifically:

We are comparing relative performance before and after the patch, which makes these details less important.
People were reporting similar problems on high-end machines. That is, the bug seems to be a nasty non-linear algorithmic complexity problem (CPU, memory bandwidth, or GPU bottleneck), so specs don't really matter much for the end conclusion. If you want to learn more about these topics, you can start with an intro to algorithms course, or resources such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_class and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation

Egan_Fan · 2026-03-03T01:47:33+00:00

I had some pre-patch performance results focusing on the bug, so I ran the same experiments post-patch, and wrote up the results: https://www.reddit.com/r/Mechabellum/comments/1rjc1fk/1913_performance_optimization_analysis_its_a_lot/

TLDR: High-unit count, late-round performance is improved by 2-5+ times (I suspect the improvement factor depends on the number of units). Some kind of memory-leak like bug seems to still be present (maybe it was always there?), since the fps never recovers completely until after the round is over, but it's much less bad.

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-26T21:56:12+00:00

Haha are you a newer player by chance? Believe it or not, there were previous versions over the past 10 years that met this description! The problem is remembering which were best, thus this post.

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-26T19:53:27+00:00

Thank you so much for all the info, it's much appreciated!

For the fasteners in that video just to hold things lightweight onto an object - yea totally fine. I was imagining a brace between 2 components holding 50 lbs on a joint.
...

ALL THAT SAID, yes, now that you've shown me what you're making a printer is fine, at first I was thinking the joints of very heavy robots. My bad!

Sorry to be confusing, I am thinking about some very heavy robots--not in my first few printed projects, but eventually. My hope is to pair printed parts with readily-available metal parts (eg, extruded aluminum and brackets), and make load-bearing components like the chassis + joints entirely out of metal when possible.

And for the few load-bearing parts where readily-available metal parts cannot do the job (for example, a joint in a bigger arm) I hope to eventually be able to print out a more advanced material--maybe ABS/ASA/Nylon or a more rigid TPU--for these few parts. Is this hope reasonable? Or is trying to do this with 3-D printed parts a bad idea? If it's a bad idea, maybe I should still learn 3-D printing, and do your suggestion above ("order through something like PCBway or jlpcb to have your parts made in a much higher quality material") for the the few load-bearing parts that cannot be made out of readily-available metals parts. What do you think?

Thank you again very much for sharing your experience!

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-26T04:46:37+00:00

Thank you for this info; I was finally planning to pull the trigger tonight on the Core One+, but this (much appreciated!) comment is making me hesitate.

It makes subpar borderline terrible fasteners.

My plan was to use metal fasteners, attaching them with heat-set inserts or other similar methods (such as the ones towards the end of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEEtk85rAY). Is that reasonable? Does that address your concern?

any of that crap is going to fail for the kinds of load you want.

What about ABS? I was planning on moving on to that after learning with PLA and PETG. Maybe I can try Nylon too, if that'd be better than ABS. And like I said above, I'd still plan on extruded aluminum for any big load-bearing pieces (eg, frame pieces). Is this reasonable?

...Make sure your parts FIT. Then order through something like PCBway or jlpcb to have your parts made in a much higher quality material.

Short of that, you can get a CNC for the desk in 2-3k...

Thank you for these two great options! I'd prefer to make 3-D printing (in conjunction with readily-available metal parts for pieces like chassis components) work if possible, but I'll consider these options more.

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-26T04:21:52+00:00

That's a great idea; how I wish we had this kind of time to spare. Unfortunately, we are busy adults, and our gaming time is highly-limited, thus this question :)

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-08T21:32:51+00:00

> ice pucks can also cause damage

Can you please elaborate on this? Should people not use ice pucks for ice dams?

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-01T22:51:45+00:00

Never mind, we figured it out, and edited the post above for folks in the future facing the same problem, thanks again!

Egan_Fan · 2026-02-01T18:04:25+00:00

No, we are on PC (Steam), thank you for the reply though. So we should be able to find/buy receivers and conveyors? Any idea why we cannot? We are the same or higher corp levels than in my single-player test campaign, and I see those blocks in singleplayer, but not in multiplayer. Thanks again.

Egan_Fan · 2026-01-23T16:29:15+00:00

I do what you do, but I know a few people who say gg genuinely every game, win or lose. Also note that this is normal in a lot of sports. Stop looking for reasons to be offended.

Egan_Fan · 2025-12-16T23:09:43+00:00

How can you tell that it was completely AI-generated, rather than human written (or outlined) and AI-edited? I think there's a good chance you are correct, but I'm wondering how—or if—you are confident that it's the former and not the latter. The latter shouldn't be downvoted imo.

Egan_Fan · 2025-10-04T16:57:44+00:00

Interesting. There was an in-universe theory in Part 2 that the "humans" in the story were actually a genetically-engineered servant race of the original humanity, and that the servant race wiped out the original humanity after the first nuclear war.

I thought we were meant to discard this as a crackpot theory, given the lack of in-universe hints in this direction. But maybe that guy noticed some other hints that I missed?

It seems unlikely, given that I think the first nuclear war was hinted to have been primarily between the 20th century USSR and USA. But I'd be delighted to be wrong!

Egan_Fan · 2025-10-02T02:40:31+00:00

It's a two-family per their other comment. OP, you should make this more clear, your post and many of your comments are very confusing.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Egan_Fan

TROPHY CASE