I have to say I’m not that impressed with what I’ve seen. The decision to go with two nozzles seems odd given that other manufacturers are looking more at single nozzles with multiple delivery systems and I’m concerned about the complexity of the lifting system (just one more thing to go wrong) and how effective it actually is. I’m also a little surprised they’re not full metal hot ends, and the emphasis on the 2.8mm size seems odd to me, like they know there’s an issue there and are forestalling complaints; it’s just an odd thing to put in a first release text.
On the price point, I have to compare it to the Prusa i3 Mk2. OK, that’s much more of a home user machine, but what does that really mean? The whole purpose of these things is to produce high quality prints reliably and if the Prusa can do that (and it sounds like it can), then why is the Ultimaker almost four times as expensive?
There is more to it than the two nozzles. Full metal can be added since the cores are easily swappable. Also the lifting mechanism has been tested for more than 10000 times (without any wear) according to Daid on the Ultimaker forums.
The wifi connectivity and the availability of the web-api on the printer makes it easy to use in a farm.
Check out the video below
And can you ship 1000 prusa i3’s Mk2 to a company and be sure they deliver thesame high quality? Ultimaker promises that, and that is why they are more expensive.
To be honest, @Rob_Leufkens, all that video says to me is that Ultimaker made a very poor job of planning and testing the machine. How did they get to production without properly testing the RFID reader? If they made that mistake, what others did they make?
As far as quality goes, I don’t know of any company that ships any product with the understanding that some of them might be poorly built and there’s absolutely no guarantee every single last one of the Ultimaker 3s will be perfect any more than any other printer.
As for order numbers, why should a product be more expensive simply because they can ship more of them? Surely prices should reduce with higher volume production, not increase, as it does with any other product. Not that I’m convinced they’re any more able to deliver a 1000 machine order than Prusa are; the video itself shows parts being printed, cleaned and assembled by hand, not an automated production line.
I get that there are going to be elements that mean this is a more expensive printer than the Prusa and that it’s probably more suitable for a farm/larger business, I do. But it’s four times more expensive, and that’s an awfully big hike.
I agree that it’s (too) expensive. I was doubting about buying the printer and selling my own. But the price is indeed too high.
As stated ,on the um forums, they started experimenting with the dual extrusion after the UM2 released and they wanted to get it right (which i believe they have done that now) all this time and investment in research needs to be covered. and that offcourse comes down to the consumer which buys the printer.
I think you can compare it to the mobile market. Apple produces quality products for a high price, but you can get a cheap phone that does promises to do thesame thing. People still buy the quality product because they are ensured that it will keep working properly. Samsung tries to deliver both, release high end phones (S7 series, except the note hahaha) and cheap (A5) phones.
We just bought one for work and I can give you a viewpoint. It is largely turnkey; input a model and it produces parts w/o much specialized knowledge, as long as you stay on the reservation. It is amazing to have parts produced, w/o regard to overhangs or holes or other limitations with this ease. It works that well for material pairs it has programmed into it. If you need something else, you are on your own again.
Three items as warnings.1) the build volume listed is NOT for dual builds as that costs some space between heads. Also there are some keep-out zones that reduce usable space a bit for some shapes. Convincing it to print near the size limit is arduous. 2) The software can be uppity, single minded, and uncooperative if you need to do something the programmer had not thought of. 3) The niceties are subject to the rule of unintended consequences. The very convenient front cover of the print carriage, with its magnetic catch, makes changing hot ends easy. Up until a large part lost adhesion one night and somehow popped the cover loose. By the light of day, the failed part was not the ball of fishing line we have come to love, but because the partially open cover blocked the extrusion, it had backed up, filled the print head with molten PETT, overflowing back up into the release mechanism for both heads. I have a new appreciation for just how strong PETT is now. Also an aversion to the whole “easy to open” concept, I’m going to wire it shut with a bail. Trust me, the easy change feature failed here.
Live and learn. Other than that, yes a nice machine for business.
