F for failure... But anything after Y (Yield strength) is permanently altered...
Vathsade
joined 1 year ago
A lot of people who come into the museum do that, do they?
Holy crap, nice description.
And the beanstalk
Because 7 was a registered 6 offender
Looked into this myself, here's a brief summary of my thoughts:
V2 has the flying gantry, Trident has the moving base. Primary difference is that since the base (i.e., print surface) is physically secured and rigid to the frame, bed meshes and other alignments should be more consistent. In other words, run a mesh once (or a few times for each of different bed temperatures) and never need to create the mesh again. All else being equal, the flying gantry is a more idealized option since the base in contact with the print is stationary, so very little force is ever seen by the model itself (short of small x and y forces while printing).
Now the trade off is the significantly added complexity of 4 independent z-motors supporting the gantry. In addition, this requires a gantry alignment macro each time the motors are powered off/on since the gantry sags asymmetrically if the motors aren't locked (requiring power).
I have built a V2.4 and found it great, but I don't know if I personally have found it worth it to have the fixed bed and additional motors. It's nice to say I did, and it works, but if I needed to make another, I would absolutely go Trident. Cheaper and simpler, and it's not an ideal world so many of the supposed benefits don't really make a big difference.
I'm clamoring for more miak.
We need to accept a premium for the cleanest and safest baseload generation we have.
Probably guys from the same bike
view more: next ›
Newpipe still works (Google may break it, but the app is usually updated in a couple days and it works again)