This looks great! I’m super happy with my MK4, and have never had to do anything with it after the initial kit build and re-seating the LCD cable to fix some early screen-blanking issues.

I’ll probably skip this for my own printer since it seems like most (but not all) of the speed up comes from layer height, but $99 is not terrible for anyone who gets value from it. And anyone buying a new printer gets this stuff with no price increase, which is nice and makes the MK4/MK4S even easier to recommend.

I didn’t know how much more dimensionally accurate Prusa’s prints are compared to the competition, but it makes sense now why there are so many calibration models online if that just isn’t the way every printer works. I’ve designed some parts that need an 0.1mm first layer because I’ve never had any failures with that, but I guess if I share the STLs other people might have trouble.

I do think it’s important to be unassailable, because it’d be easy to say “the libs are making misleading claims” and then people not paying lots of attention will think there’s a “both sides” situation going on. I’m sure we all assumed it was literally on display as an exhibit; I was mislead. If you stick to transparent, honest language, the “both sides” stuff falls apart.

The MAGAs are unreachable, but the poorly-informed are out there too, and making them easier to confuse (by actually also spewing misleading-but-technically-true things) is not a good strategy.

Maybe, but that’s still insincere. When truth is on your side you don’t need to use weasel language.

It was sold in the gift shop, not on display. I know it’s not an enormous difference, but let’s try our best to keep the misinformation just on their side.

The best I have is to be careful to minimize dependencies, and minimize when I change the number of faces an object has, but of course that’s unavoidable sometimes. I don’t buy it that all CAD tools have the same problem or that this is how real professional CAD designers would work, though.

To minimize dependencies for example, instead of drawing the sketch for pad 2 directly on a face of pad 1, I might draw it on the base plane and transform the sketch to line up with pad 1’s face. The main consequence is that I need to manually move pad 2’s sketch if I change the size/position of pad 1. It’s a tradeoff, because I’m giving up some of the benefits of parametric CAD in exchange for easier fix-up.

I agree, mapping a datum plane to a face should have the same topo naming issue as just drawing on the face, so I don’t know why the guide would suggest that. The comment below about mapping datum planes to a simplified skeleton is interesting though.

The good news is that the next release (which sounds imminent) apparently improves it quite a bit.

They definitely don’t know what they’re doing. They featured this one, which is a death trap. It has a disclaimer that it might not be safe above 120V, but it’s absolutely unsafe and a code violation in the US, where we use 120V (and are very litigious). The disclaimer says they’re trying to get it approved which implies they believe it could be and that the design is sound, but fundamentally it cannot meet code in the US for mains voltage use.

Even if the design were sound, there are material requirements, and having seen the quality of prints some people find acceptable, there’s no chance allowing random people online to print their own boxes is safe.

I think they basically run the contests and feature things based on “ooh this is neat” and “this will excite people to use 3d printers”. It’s a marketing thing, and I guess I accept it because I have low expectations of even pretty-good businesses. But if it’s illegal…someone should probably let them know.

I was expecting Hal

On the other hand, an experienced driver might forget it’s there since they never use it. Add in a high-stress situation, and you get a problem.

Now imagine you’ve been driving the Tesla for a long time and don’t ever use the manual release because you’re not supposed to so you don’t mess up the window. And then imagine you’re in a high-stress situation. That’s how having an unmarked backup can fail.

Plus, that handle doesn’t even look like a normal handle - I have never see a car where you pull up to exit instead of sideways away from the door.

On the other hand, if you never use the mechanical release and have spent a long time only driving your Tesla, wouldn’t it be possible to forget it’s there while in a high-stress situation?

This is an interesting suggestion. The unsupported overhangs at the transitions are part of why I don’t like using gyroid infill; I don’t need my infill to introduce new potential problems in a print. That said, reducing layer height would be disappointing in most cases because I also don’t need my infill to slow the print down (and with some filaments, it’s also pretty visible), so the other suggestions might be more difficult-but better-ideas. It’d be cool to try a patch someone submits.

Did they describe the types of user error that could cause this?

Or too thin (much less than one layer height)?

It’s not necessarily fluff; features do matter, but which ones matter and how much they matter is complicated. Do you want to tinker with a printer, or do you just want a tool that works?

If you want a tool, I recommend a Prusa or maybe a Bambu. My Prusa just does what I ask it to; I’ve done zero calibration, optimization, tweaking, etc. Cheaper printers often require understanding bed leveling, figuring out how to adjust them best, etc. or vary more copy-to-copy (so one Ender 3 might work great, while another might be a source of frustration) or require upgrades to really become enjoyable.

Do you have a budget? Or is it just about making sure you’re getting your money’s worth (so $2000 is fine if it’s 10x better than a $200 printer)?

Yup. My kid found the idea hilarious when I explained why I’d swiped a washable glue stick from the arts and crafts box.

It hangs on well, but also makes removal easier.

You could always try it…

I use PEI instead of glass and find that a thin layer of glue stick works great for helping sticky materials release.

Could you share some examples of what you’ve been able to create, and approximately how long they took?

Do I just connect thermal pads to the ground plane and call it a day?

Yup.

Wouldn’t that make the components hard to solder with hot air?

Sorry, I’ve never tried hot air assembly.

Do I make an isolated polygon that only acts as a thermal pad?

Ideally the copper area is big to spread out the heat. If you have an isolated polygon it can’t spread very far and buys you less cooling.

Wow, thanks for the incredibly broad write up! That’s a crazy number of tools to try.

FreeCAD:

giving up as soon as any two edges’ fillets touch

I haven’t quite had that issue with FreeCAD; an ordinary corner works fine. Where I’ve had that issue is when the fillet is large relative to the edge sizes though, so there are definitely failure cases.

not working well if you don’t learn its definition of good design

This is so incredibly true. I’ve had to restart projects because I didn’t realize how I’d need to approach them to get FreeCAD to allow me to do what I wanted to do. That’s probably the biggest issue I have with it: you really have to know how it wants things done, and often you won’t learn that til you’ve tried, failed, and watched a couple YouTube videos from more experienced users. Fortunately, after a few projects I’ve gotten to the point where I can usually get relatively simple designs right the first time…but I have no doubt I’ll still sometimes have to start over or take big steps backward to change my approach to a problem.

Others have mentioned OpenSCAD and that’s what I started with years ago; it’s fine for simple things (or fractals/programmatically specified forms) but when designing something with more complexity I find it very difficult to manage, compared to just directly drawing what I want and then constraining it appropriately.