- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmy.world
- linux@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- 3dprinting@lemmy.world
- linux@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
🥀🥀🥀
The “fuck ai” crowd sounds so much like the “fuck cloud” crowd from 10-15 years ago.
I’m still anti-cloud
(I admit, I liked the cloud crowd better.)
Grow up.
What does it mean?
It means the Dev used Claude.
Where fork?
Thank you. Forked.
deleted by creator
I’m happy with my slightly modded Ender 3 Pro, but if I ever upgrade the Snapmaker U1 looks nice. I’ll only buy from a company that supports open source firmware. Bambu is trash, unfortunately every 3D printing related YouTuber seems to have happily taken a sponsorship from them so they are everywhere now. I hate it.
The problem with Bambu is they are not trash at all. Their printers are high-quality, and the way they integrate with their proprietary slicer (that they totally stole from the community before locking it down) and MakerWorld is genuinely excellent.
I have 3 Bambu printers. I don’t buy their products anymore (my newest printer is an SV-08 max), but I still use the ones I have and they’re excellent, easy machines. And if someone new comes to me wanting a starter “just click print and it works” solution, I’m still likely to point them towards an A1 mini. They’re cheap and work great out of the box with zero handholding from me required.
And that’s why I kinda hate them. They don’t have to be dickheads, but choose to be. Their products are fantastic, and I’d honestly be using Bambu Studio for them instead of Orca anyway.
their proprietary slicer
That’s the problem, it cannot be proprietary when based off slic3R. It’s not their property to lock down.
The slicer is not proprietary, but the networking plugin for printer communication is
deleted by creator
Especially the makerworld integration for casual users. My wife puts about 80% of the print time on ours and it’s all from the android app, printing models she finds on the app. I though of getting a Prusa, but to be realistic I can’t even put the P1S in LAN only mode because that part won’t work, so I’m stuck with it for now.
Apparently their dual extruder implementation works far better than any other on the market which is a huge deal for printing supports that don’t stick. Several of my friends have them and all love the print quality (it’s far better than anything I’ve gotten out of my printers). The pricing is admittedly great too.
I don’t have any issues with my i3 so won’t be getting one anytime soon, but I absolutely see why people new to 3D printing will go straight to Bambu. It sucks that they actively chose to be bad for the open source community they built their company on top of.
To be fair all of the companies in the 3D printing industry built their business on the backs of the open source community and pretty much all of them are some level of shitty towards the community. Creality and most others regularly violate licenses by dragging their feet and only complying when people really complain. Even Prusa has started to back away from open source.
Bambu is just catching shit for being the Apple of 3D printing. They are trying the hardest to build a walled garden.
I’ve been interested in getting a 3d printer for a while now but am not deep into what’s out there, does the ender 3 pro require any cloud or services that I can’t run locally to function?
Edit: same question for the snapmaker U1.
Also, where do you source your fillament from? Any other ongoing maintenance requirements (material-wise)?
I want a 3d printer, not some new relationship with a corporation.
Ender 3 Pro is a completely offline printer. It has a microSD slot and a USB port, that’s it. No network connectivoty at all. It runs Marlin firmware which is a long-standing Arduino-based open source 3D printer firmware. It’s highly customizable and upgradable. I added a CR Touch bed probe to mine and rebuilt the firmware to enable the unified bed leveling features. It’s not the most user friendly but it’s a decent, cheap platform, fully open source, and puts out decent prints.
You can also run klipper on them if you want network connectivity. Granted you need a raspberry pi to run klipper so there is that.
After running klipper on my Ratrigs I can’t even consider Marlin anymore. Modifying a config file and restarting is less painful than having to compile and flash a bin for every modification or update.
That’s what I switched to about 2 months after getting my Ender 3 S1 Pro. Klipper running from a RPi, lets me push sliced files out over WiFi to the printer right from Orca. So much better than dealing with SD cards.
I’ve come from an ender 3 pro to a Bambu P1S with AMS. As others have said the Bambu environment makes it “apple-like” (for better or for worse) to print. Set up, to print is maybe an hour? You spend the majority of your time with the printer actually printing. Which is why everyone (I included) are so upset about how Bambu is handling this.
Meanwhile the ender you spend the majority of your time getting the printer settings right, adding mods, adding firmware, trying new slicers, bed leveling, etc. I spent so much more time tinkering with my ender than printing that i just gave up printing altogether.
If you want to just print things it’s really hard to beat a Bambu. If you want to tinker and actually learn what 3d printing does and how it works, other printers like an Ender is the way to go.
Thank you, this is very helpful information, too. Lucky for me, I like to reinvent the wheel from time to time for fun, so the more open option isn’t scary, though it does sound like there’s a decent chance my 3d printer will just be a dust collector what with all the other wheels I started reinventing but never finished. But I think I will add another hobby to the collection.
I went with the Qidi Q1 Pro and I’ve been very happy with it. Orca Slicer’s built in profiles for it have worked great so I didn’t have to tinker. It runs Fluidd so once it was connected to the local network I could monitor and control it that way (and it will display directly in Orca Slicer).
There is a setting in the printer’s interface to restrict it to local network only (and just to be absolutely certain I blocked it in my firewall as well). There are no penalties for not connecting it to the internet.
I don’t know much about the Snapmaker U1 other than what’s stated on this thread and on their site. Just looks like a more open alternative to Bambu if you need fancy features like multi filament printing.
I buy most of my filament from Micro Center (their Inland brand) and some I’ve gotten from Amazon.
Thanks for the quick replies! That snapmaker U1 looks great, but I do see that page referencing their app, so it could go either way, depending on whether their app is a mandatory part of the pathway.
The other one sounds like it might be a great way to get my daughter into more techy stuff, since she loves 3d printed stuff, so modifying it and needing to also modify the firmware might even be a plus for that.
I do see that page referencing their app, so it could go either way, depending on whether their app is a mandatory part of the pathway.
It looks like you can control it with vanilla Orcaslicer. See the last post in this Snapmaker forum thread, for instance. It may or may not be willing to take gcode through the USB port—the specs indicate it has one.
It looks to me like they’re continuing in their usual direction of fairly open software on mostly proprietary hardware.
I own a U1 and I use it completely offline from the internet. I upload files to it from OrcaSlicer or use the USB port. I can even use the smart phone app on my local wifi network.
Jarczak’s fork crossed the line by injecting falsified identity metadata into its network communication. “In simple terms: it pretended to be the official Bambu Studio client when communicating with our servers.”
If it’s easy enough to get access to your cloud infrastructure by just changing some metadata about the connection, then you really should re-think your authentication systems. If I were to publish the exact model and pinning of the lock on my house, it would be silly of me to be mad that someone used that to make their own keys.
The DMCA is literally written in a way that they could write “DO NOT USE” in a text file and include it with firmware and claim that using the firmware Ina way they didn’t like was “breaking a digital lock”
Honestly I’m perfectly fine with the DMCA just being entirely revoked at this point. It has enabled more bad than it has done good, even when things went “right”
There are even supposed to be safe harbor protections, but the reality is that individuals don’t have the legal resources for it to matter.
What, are they claiming the user agent their application uses is copyrightable IP?
They’re claiming that forking their open source code and using the user agent in it unchanged is “impersonation”. And the only reason that might be an issue is because Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to break any digital lock, even if it’s a shitty one. Whether this even counts as a lock is up for debate in my opinion, but that doesn’t stop people from getting sued and owing lawyers money.
If you share the lock and the key with the public and tell them (via AGPL copyleft open source license) they may use, share, modify it (or not), etc with no penalty, and they even give you the secret knock, i can’t in any way see how that’s breaking a lock.
But they said don’t use the key or the secret knock, otherwise they’ll write a blog shit talking you.
So if there is a legal battle, this would likely be the crux of their argument. Good to know.
I dunno. Plenty of people have gotten in serious trouble for just accessing publicly reachable data and systems. And this was without identifying themselves as someone else or acting as someone else.
I wonder if the courts would agree with you. I don’t think “your lock was shitty” will hold up in court.
Maybe this is one of those cases where every single user of the software is liable since they are the one accessing the computer systems? But the software creator isn’t? I dunno.
This is just a comment on accessing computer systems. Not a comment on 3D printers or Louis.
I’ve just been listening to the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of The Bicameral mind and your username is a word I had to learn in the process.
Great move by Snapmaker. In considering buying a new printer soon I am very annoyed by how difficult it is to know beforehand how much functionality of a printer is locked behind cloud connectivity that can be remotely disabled at any point. I know Bambu is to avoid absolutely thanks to the very public backlash they got but what about the others?
I know Prusa is a shining example of letting their customers own their devices but they are pricy. I didn’t know Snapmaker had the same kind of mentality until now thanks to that move.
You might check out the Consumer Rights Wiki, also started by Rossman. It’s crowd sourced, and lists anti-consumer BS like forced cloud subscriptions for a lot of companies.
Just find a printer, look up the company there, and see how legit they are. There’s even a browser plugin that pops up on any website that has an entry on the wiki.
Wish they had the opposite. I feel like most people want to know who to go to, less so on who to avoid. I can see the usefulness in the list, but it’s backwards when people want to find someone
Knowing what I know now, I’ trade my Bambu P1S for a Prusa. Buy once, cry once.
My Prusa was tucked in between the cushions of my couch for a cross country move, left in storage for one year, and moved again before I just blew the first off and smashed out a perfect print from an SD card. That’s a solid enough performance I don’t think I’d consider any other brand.
The worst thing about Prusa is the knowledge that no matter what you buy, there will be an upgrade available to an even better one WAY too quickly, and then you’ll want that one too. It’s a trap, I tell you!
j/k I still love my Prusa MK3S+, though the relentless upgrade temptation is real.
I thought tge worst part about Prusa was them partnering with an Israeli company.
I pulled mine out of storage after four years. Same thing, blew the dust off, plugged it in, expecting the worst. Nope, it just lit up and ran through the setup procedure. Set the z and printed perfectly, just like I had it set up when I put it in storage. I didn’t expect such a sensitive machine with such tight tolerances to just work.
any printer will do that.
Some require retentioning belts, readjusting the bed level, or other maintainance items before you can get a perfect print again.
Not in my experience. They are tools like any other tool.
And some tools are worse than others.
Prusa is pricy because they make the de facto standards - including PrusaSlicer which is the base of OrcaSlicer/Bambu Studio.
Bambu can sell cheaper for two reason:
- limited research needed to make their own products - they’re just copying open patents and software, tuning it a little, and selling the package at manufacturing cost + profit margins
- the CCP pouring a shitton of money into companies to subsidise them and allow them to undercut western competition. Bambu makes a printer for $1000, CCP pays $600 of it, Bambu sells for $600 - $200 profit
Prusa is pricy because they make the de facto standards - including PrusaSlicer which is the base of OrcaSlicer/Bambu Studio.
PrusaSlicer itself is just a fork of Slic3r, anyway.
Open-source slicing has always been built on a tradition of collaboration and attribution. Slic3r, created by Alessandro Ranellucci and the RepRap community, laid the foundation. PrusaSlicer by Prusa Research built on Slic3r and acknowledged that heritage. Bambu Studio in turn forked from PrusaSlicer, and SuperSlicer by @supermerill extended PrusaSlicer with community-driven enhancements. Each project carried the work of its predecessors forward, crediting those who came before.
OrcaSlicer began in that same spirit, drawing from BambuStudio, PrusaSlicer, and ideas inspired by CuraSlicer and SuperSlicer.
PrusaSlicer is a fork of Slic3r.
limited research needed to make their own products - they’re just copying open patents and software, tuning it a little, and selling the package at manufacturing cost + profit margins
So you really have no idea about these printers. Bambu has a dozen patents for novel IP.
“copying open patents” no such thing as an open patent, IP is either patent, or open domain. All printer companies exploit expired patents, including Prusa.
Stratasys is suing Bambu over: Purge Towers, Force Detection, Networked Systems & Smart Spools, but Stratasys are cunts who try to sue anyone. How did they get a patent for purge towers.
Bambi’s contributions are marginal compared to all the prior IP they use (and wasn’t Prusa actually suing them for using a number of their patents without the rights?).
as for open patents: any patent that is expired or where the owner isn’t interested in enforcing uniqueness (many a things are patented yet in public domain!). by open I simply mean no licensing is required.
And yes, that’s precisely what Bambu does. Take open designs, public domain parts and bang them together until they got something working. Which is why I recommend people buy Prusa, not Bambu - reward with some extra spending the people who actually do the hard work, not the ones who swoop in at the end and try to undercut the actual innovators.
I didn’t know Snapmaker had the same kind of mentality until now thanks to that move.
Smart move by Snapmaker, for the price of one hardware unit they get a lot of exposure to exactly the kind of people that they’re marketing towards.
As the owner of a Snapmaker2 A150 (that is, one of their second-gen multifunction devices, fairly old now), I can say that my experience with it has been decent enough. It speaks a lightly modified Marlin dialect and can be run completely offline. New firmware requires user permission. They did release the source for the firmware and for their custom slicer (not worth it), and some of the more adventurous owners did manage to flash it with modified firmware. There were a few complaints at the time about the hardware not being as open as people had hoped, mostly because of custom connectors and the like.
Hardware-quality-wise, it was kneecapped by needing to be solid enough for CNC, so it’s slower and heavier than a purpose-built printer would need to be, but the prints are of decent enough quality for a device of its age and type.
I knew about the problems with Bambu long before I bought my new printer back in December. I ended up going with an Elegoo Centauri Carbon. It works out of the box without ever requiring you to set up an account, install an app on your phone, or connect to a cloud service. I just use mine with a USB stick.
I wanted to go with Prusa but the cost difference was too great for me at that time (I’m sure it still is).
that was basically my chain of purchase as well. I knew way in advance of bambus shady history. Elegoo came in with a fairly affordable option that doesnt constantly shit itself as some of the printers of yesteryears (not saying its 0 though, you can find cases of it all the time)
its under tollerate level because they dont mandate i have to use elegoo slicer (free to use orcaslicer), and so far at least allows for open source firmwares to exist.
I got the DIY kit Prusa MK3S+ a few years ago during covid, and it has been a workhorse. I love it, but I also don’t have experience with many other 3d printers. I worked a bit with them in like the early 2010s but things have changed so much, so I don’t know what to compare it to.
Same, an ex and I were early Cupcake CNC adopters, but then I didn’t touch a 3D printer for a decade. When I got back into it the Prusa MK3S+ was the obvious choice for DIY/FOSS lineage, that thing is not fancy but it sure is a tank.
I really want the DIY kit. How was your experience actually building it?
Took me about 8 hours, I was slow and careful. You can fuck it up, but only if you’re totally reckless and ignore the instructions.
I loved it, but there was one particular part that wasn’t clear in the instructions so I had to do some research. There were tons of threads about that one step but I assume they’ve fixed it from 5 years ago.
The U1 is amazing by the way
I recently upgraded from an Ender 3 V3 to the Snapmaker U1. I absolutely love it. Making a lid for the top was very cheap, too
snapmaker has been really nice about that sort of thing. they sent out review units of the u1 early, got roasted, and fixed most of the things people didn’t like. i’ve run mine without any sort of account from the start. you can take it completely offline or run it in “lan mode”, and the only things that get more annoying are firmware updates and remote control. you can still do them, there’s just a bit more setup.
It looks like Rossman is saying that anyone can post this code because it’s an open source, GPL code. Rossman also posted the code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jhRqgHxEP8&t=2s
Right, there are many forks of the software, which is allowed under the AGPL licence.
Slic3r by Alessandro Ranellucci established the original open-source foundation.
Then PrusaSlicer forked from that -ok.
Then Orcaslicer forked from that -ok.
Then Bambu locked down it’s fork - not ok, violation of the slic3r AGPL.
It’s like…can I borrow your car? puts a bumper sticker on it, changes the locks, my car now.
Slic3r is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.
The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is a strong copyleft, free software license designed to ensure source code remains open, even when software is run over a network. Based on GPLv3, it closes the “ASP loophole” by requiring companies that modify and offer software as a service (SaaS) to make the source code available to users.
not really what the gpl means, but good for him i guess?
The GPL explicitly grants anyone the right to share, distribute, and even modify the source code. So yes, that is exactly what it means. They cannot claim they wrote it, but they can absolutely both share and distribute the source code, and are in fact required to if they do make modifications to it. It’s literally the main thing the license is even about.
Small sidenote: distribution of modified source code of GPLv2/v3 covered projects is only mandatory to those who have access to a binary version of the modified sources.
e.g. if you take a GPLv2 covered project that is a simple HTTP server, and you give the binary nobody, then you’re not required to share the source (if the HTTP server is AGPL covered then you need to provide it to anyone who can access the HTTP service and requests the source).
This is an important distinction, as you can’t demand the source of a GPL project from someone who cloned it and made modifications to their own use without distributing a binary of those changes. If I fork Orca and make some changes, and showcase those as screenshots, you have absolutely no right to demand the source for it. If I were to send you a binary of Orca with my changes, then you’d have the right.
I mean this distinction is obviously not applicable here but I wanted to make sure the GPL summary is fully correct. Which is the best kind of correct.
Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.
A fully correct statement is categorically a technically correct statement, therefore the two are not contradictory.
You statement is, also, technically correct. And therefore a fully correct statement is the best kind of correct, via the transitive property.
I demand to see your source code
maybe my thinking is off then, but in my mind it’s mainly for first and second parties? as in, orca and bambu both have to share the source when sharing the binary, not necessarily immediately but on request. anything built on top of gpl code can be closed unless it’s agpl. as a third party to all this, can rossman share the code bambu has made on top of orca?
Your thinking is off, the GPL and derived licenses like the AGPL are viral on purpose. They apply to everybody who uses, downloads, or accesses the software (in the case of the AGPL) and they are explicit about this:
Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License.
what i’m reading from that is that both parties must agree that the work has been conveyed. with the risk of going all sovcit, if the conveyed item is a binary, and the producer does not send the source code to the consumer as instructed by the license, can the consumer really pull the source and distribute it? surely if the license is broken the work falls back on default permissions, e.g. all rights reserved?
In the general case, the person or persons who distributed the binary would then have done so illegally. In order to distribute, you have to follow the terms of the license. So them attempting to go after anyone downstream of them at that point is sort of like calling the police because someone stole your drug stash. And if there’s an upstream beyond the illegal distributors, they’re practically waving a “Sue me now!” placard in their direction.
The originator of the code, above whom there is no upstream, is allowed to offer it under more than one license (including a mixture of free and closed licenses), but the specific license in force has to be specified with each distributed copy.
Do you have an example of a project that has both free and commercial licenses? How does that work in practice?
Maybe read the GPL ;)
But the language defines that if you distribute a binary, you must make the source available, and that source is allowed to be taken, modified, redistributed as binary and source, as long as the person doing the modifications attributes you and all other previous authors.
It doesn’t matter if that binary comes as a firmware on a device the user purchased.
The distributor does not have to distribute the source with the binary, they just have to make it available, for free, and they cannot stop anyone using it as defined above.
Breaking the license does not change how the software is licensed, it just puts the entity doing the violations in violation of a license.
the fsf is off the opinion that you explicitly can paywall the sources separately from the product. that’s why i find this interesting.
AGPL can be closed too, the license bases the right to the source based on the access to the end product:
-
GPLv2/v3 - if you have the binary executable output of the GPLv2/3 covered source, you must be granted access to the exact source used to make the binary. This applies to legitimately sourced binaries only - if you were to hack into a company’s servers and get a binary of a modified GPL product, this wouldn’t apply. But extracting a binary from a device you own IS a legitimate access (so e.g. if your phone uses U-boot, the manufacturer must grant you access to their modified U-Boot sources used to build the bootloader)
-
AGPL - if you have (legitimate) access to a service you can request the source. This is so e.g. web services can be made into GPLed code where modifications must be released (negating the requirement of possession of a binary, since you can’t possess a binary that runs on a remote server). e.g. let’s say I run GTK app via browser using kasmVNC - if the app is GPL, I don’t have to provide the source, if it’s AGPL, I have to provide the source.
are you sure about that first one? yes they have to give you the source, but what happens if they don’t? i’ve genuinely not thought about that before.
That’s where legal actions come into place.
I’ve managed to force multiple Chinese companies to release sources that were adamant they don’t have to, just by threatening to report them to the FSF and SFC - both bodies have been wildly successful in prosecuting licence breaches.
Also both the EU and the US have now precedents and laws in place that allow fast-tracking obvious licence violators’ blocking from the market. For a small Chinese company whose main target market is the west, it’s a major blow if their sales and export are blocked because they won’t release the source.
So they try to play hardball, but it’s like modern lifts - the moment you press the right buttons suddenly they do exactly what you want them to.
I remember this happening to Linksys with the WRT-54g routers. They shipped with firmware based on open software (I don’t remember the exact license) and they were brought to court and forced to release the source code.
In the end it really helped the sales of that model because hobbyists wanted it for the freedom of running their own code on it.
oh yeah i remember that. pretty sure that was gpl.
this is sort of a predecessor to that situation thus far: bambu is obviously in the wrong with regards to not handing out gpl’ed source, but they are in their full right to refuse handing out stuff they’ve built on top. so the question then is, is rossman in the clear for having taken their source code? if he has bought one of their printers (most likely) it’s pretty cut and dry, but if he took the code from somewhere else he has technically stolen it and the license does not apply. at least that’s my read.
Normally the copyright holder has to take them to court to enforce copyleft licenses like the AGPL. Hopefully we will soon find out if users can also enforce it, as a 3rd party beneficiary under contract law.
-
Exactly what the GPL means, Bambu intern.
yeah, this is the interesting one. also this one and he ones below it.
basically, bambu has the right to refuse handing out gpled code. that’s part of their freedom to distribute as they see fit. however, they can only exercise that freedom on people they haven’t given the binaries. so if you decompile or download all the sources, and you don’t own one of their printers, you are also violating the license.
now if rossman owns a bambu printer, and he has gotten the sources from that printer or directly from bambu, they can’t do shit. otherwise there is wiggle room.
Interesting read.
I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPLed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren’t they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?
No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn’t say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.
What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy of the program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit.
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program nonfree. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
You can charge people a fee to get a copy from you. You can’t require people to pay you when they get a copy from someone else.
Sounds like bambu is perfectly free to not give the code to anyone, but as soon as they give the code to someone, that someone can give it to whoever they want.
Did you read it?
yeah, a lot of times. i had software licencing responsibilities for a product for a while, and they really didn’t want gpl stuff in there for the reasons stated in the thread.
the interesting wrinkle in this situation is: if rossman is distributing all of bambu’s code, including the account stuff that far as i can tell is another codebase, and he hasn’t gotten it from his own printer (which wouldn’t have the sources) then no “agreement” has taken place. if bambu is told to distribute sources and they say “no”, they’re in the wrong. but if they haven’t said anything, then technically rossman is stealing the code. it would most likely get thrown out, but the case can be made.
My next printer is definitely going to be a Snapmaker.
They one-upped Bambu with the fully open approach of the U1, did a better tool changing printer at a lower cost, and are now supporting the good fight. I really hope it’s not a publicity stunt before enshittification begins, but so far, I’m liking them a lot.
Fingers crossed for a slightly improved U1 - primarily, a larger print volume (I’d be super happy with a ~5cm increase in all directions, making it 320x320x320), which I’m buying the moment it becomes available.
How’s the repairability of the printer? Can you get replacement parts from 3rd parties? Can you get different nozzle sizes?
I currently just use an Ender 3 Pro, and it’s comforting to know that I can easily get replacement parts and upgrades for anything on the printer. And I can trust that’ll continue for years, even if Creality goes out of business
I also use 0.2mm nozzles fairly often for smaller, more detailed prints like tabletop minis. I can get quality that almost matches SLA printers
Unless they’ve changed in the past few years, most parts are proprietary and will have to come from Snapmaker or their resellers. Swaps are usually at the module level. So the flexibility in parts sourcing is much lower than your Ender 3. On the plus side, they’re usually good about honouring warranties.
Nozzles with other aperture sizes are available from Snapmaker for the U1. It’s possible that the nozzles are a standard size (my older Snapmaker 2 uses the same nozzles as your Ender 3), but I can’t find a specification anywhere.
TL;DR: If your priority is varied parts sourcing for longevity, maybe look at a different manufacturer.
No idea, I do not have a Snapmaker… I fell for the Bambu marketing and the lack of availability of good alternatives circa 2 years ago, and hopefully this X1C will serve me for the next two three years - but I am feeling the limitations of a single print head and the build volume.
Does this community not allow videos? I tried posting a link to it directly yesterday, but Automod removed it instantly.
Yeah happens to me all the time. It’s not a good rule imo but doesn’t matter we have different subs 🙂
I don’t mind it being a rule, but I do mind it being a secret. It needs to be mentioned in the sidebar (probably as an addendum to rule #2).
Forum rules should be public, and it’s generally better for everyone if they’re specific, too.
When I report content, it’s better when the report form gives me a list of stuff to choose from, and I can check off the box.
When moderators remove content, they should have the same experience. It makes things easier for them.
Users who read the rules don’t end up getting upset about wasting time having their content that they worked hard on removed.
I don’t think it’s a good experience for users if moderators even appear to be power-tripping, and that’s often what it looks like if they are moderating without rules.
The exception that I think most people would agree with is that when the rules are specific, you can get trolls who specialize in barely not breaking the rules, while tricking other people into breaking the rules. So, good moderators do need a little discretion, but I think most of their moderation would be easier with specific rules.
I bought my Bambu back when orca slicer and local network was out of the box supported. It was only a few months later that they locked out their firmware and started down this path.
I’ve been steadfastly refusing to update firmware. I hope to modify it someday but if not, I’ll just make sure it’s my last Bambu.
Lol on me, I bought a p1s like 3 months ago.
Works like a charm though and 300€ is what like the hotend cost on my wanky homemade printer from the past.
Would love a full FOSS replacement ofc.is that something even possible (especially the cloud stuff, mighty convenient)?
To be fair, Bambu and their consumer hostile approach has been known for at least a year at this point when they locked out Orca Slicer from the cloud services originally.
It wasn’t widely known to the general public. If you were / are new to the community it’s highly likely that you don’t / didn’t know.
Yeah I’m actually in a similar situation as valmond and what you just said describes me perfectly. In fact I’d never even heard of Bambu labs until the morning that I bought my first printer, the Bambu labs a1. I just woke up, decided I wanted a 3D printer for some of my hobbies, searched “best 3d printer for beginners” and an hour or two later sprung for that one because I kept seeing it recommended, plus it was on sale. For what it’s worth it’s been fine, but had I known about the companies hostility toward the foss community I would’ve gotten something else just on principle.
when they locked out Orca Slicer from the cloud services originally.
Which violated the AGPL license from Ranellucci.
I don’t really see the point. I mean, why bother to try to do something that just makes the company’s printers more desirable? Even if you “win”, the company is going to be a pain in the ass. Do you really want to waste time and financial resources on improving the company’s product?
Just don’t buy Bambu Lab printers. Don’t recommend them. And don’t support them with software.
If this was a world in which there was one 3D printer manufacturer, it’d be different, but it’s not. They have competition.
Bambu did the biggest own-goal I have seen in decades. Meanwhile, at Snapmaker…
Because what Bamboo has done is screw over existing customers. People want their printers back to the way they baught it. They shouldn’t have to throw their printers in the trash because the manufacture decided to changed the conditions.
If you buy a car with heated seats and 3 years later, the manufacture decided to disable your heated seats unless you paid a subscription, you’d be pretty upset.
If you buy a car with heated seats and 3 years later, the manufacture decided to disable your heated seats unless you paid a subscription, you’d be pretty upset.
It’s sad that this isn’t even an unrealistic example
It technically is because the subscription was supposed to be available if you did NOT order the car with heated seats. Idk if they ever actually went through with it.
This makes Bambu even worse than BMW which is an accomplishment to say the least
Tech companies do this every week. It’s like a trade agreement with Trump. Both agree and sign a EULA, then they just throw it out. Cricut did this with their systems. Fucking legal because of shit laws.
Sure, I’d like that, but I’m not going to keep personally fighting to make life better for that manufacturer’s customers. Not when there are other car manufacturers that aren’t pulling that stuff that people can be directed to.
Is the message you want to send “if you buy product from a vendor who actively goes out of their way to dick over open-source developers, it probably won’t matter for me as a customer because those developers will keep expending time and accepting legal risk to try to improve the situation for those customers”? Or do you want it to be “you probably want to look for open-source friendly manufacturers”?
This is in response to Bambu labs enshittifying with post-sale software updates and cloud changes.
When the printers were sold they had functions that were removed in later firmware updates. This software is re-enabling those features, some of which still exist in the firmware but were hidden from the user with a software update.
It’s not such much that the developer is trying to improve Bambu Lab’s value proposition as they are trying to make the printer that they paid for work like it did when they bought it.
As someone with a BL P2S I really appreciate other people helping with this fight. I won’t buy another BL product but I’d like to keep using the one I already have.
deleted by creator
