|
|
|
|
|
|
by tjoff
900 days ago
|
|
|
What are the fundamental design flaws of XL? I haven't looked into it in detail but the design appears from a glance to be really good. If you ignore the cost, which is really hard to do in this case. But that is also somewhat justified by them targeting businesses. It just means they are lagging (which is evident by how delayed mk4 was, if it had been on time mk5 would be imminent by now). I do feel that the XL is a good stepping stone for their consumer line though, and up until the mk4 launch that is what I thought mk4 would be all about. |
|
|
This is something that the hobbyist world recognized as a really bad idea a long time ago because it makes the machine fundamentally less rigid than a well-supported closed frame would be.
Lack of rigidity results in higher vibration which results in lower quality parts and limits the speed that you can run the machine at. Prusa has tried hard to frame this as them prioritizing quality over speed but that's absolute marketing bullshit -- the things that allow a printer to run fast are largely the same things that allow it to produce high quality parts. A fast printer simply has a higher ceiling and while a fast printer can run slower if you need it to, a slow printer will always be slow.
Jo's said explicitly in interviews that the choice to use that frame design is because he wanted to prioritize easily being able to see and remove completed parts from the print bed.