
Creality Developing Belt-Driven Desktop 3D Printer - mrfusion
https://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2020/8/25/creality-developing-belt-driven-desktop-3d-printer
======
msds
I really don't understand the appeal of this sort of machine. I have a pretty
big (300x300x300mm) and very fast printer, and large prints are still
annoyingly slow and expensive. I can't ever imagine FDM printing (especially
with a small, filament-fed hotend) being an appropriate way to make
"arbitrarily long" objects. Other people have scaled the platform I have up to
500mm and 700mm, and get great results on genuinely large objects too, not
just on long things.

Furthermore, the volume production stuff is just silly. If I'm printing a
bunch of small objects, I'd rather fill a build tray with them, and then swap
it out every 8 hours when it's done. The belt release stuff really seems to
have reliability issues. Or, just use an appropriate manufacturing technique
for high volumes...

Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon with bad memories of belt build surfaces from a
Thing-O-Matic.

~~~
sydd
As someone who is quite deep into this as hobby I have to agree. "endless"
printing is a niche feature that would barely see any use. The reasons are:

1\. Just look around you: Where do you see bigger than 300mm^3 (around the
maximum size of common FDM printers) plastic objects? Barely any. Larger
single-piece objects (or parts of them) are made from metal, wood etc.

2\. To make things worse FDM parts are weaker than injection molded ones, your
big parts will be very brittle.

3\. FDM printing is inherently an unreliable process. There are lots of moving
parts (the simplest FDM printer needs 4 motors, lots of belts, idlers, gears
etc) and very tight tolerances (e.g. the print needs to begin 0.08-0.12mm
above the printing plate; the whole priting plate needs to be very level and
parallell to the printhead.). This is achievable at surprisingly low cost
today (an entry level Creality printer is <200$), but it needs constant
maintenance - meaning you need to adjust something around every 20-50 print
hours. (I guess industry grade machines are better, but Creality is aiming for
the hobbyist market.). So in practice your "endless" print will likely go
wrong after a day or so making it useless.

4\. If they dont go wrong slight misconfiguration or misalignment causes your
prints to be ugly/faulty. And even a perfectly tuned FDM printer cannot reach
the precision of an injection molded part. Just to get a picture heres a link
that shows how many things can go wrong:
[https://www.simplify3d.com/support/print-quality-
troubleshoo...](https://www.simplify3d.com/support/print-quality-
troubleshooting/)

I am starting to think that FDM based printing is a dead end in the history of
3D printing (mainly because of reason #3). Likely the future is resin - a
simple LCD resin printer has 1 moving part. But they need to solve the issue
that most resins are nasty, toxic materials that you dont want to have around
in your home.

~~~
mrfusion
I like resin but doesn’t that limit your choices of materials? And isn’t there
a lot of post processing?

~~~
cfeduke
I print a lot of miniatures which require tons of supports, but the support
process most people in my space use result in supports that are incredibly
easy to remove - it got to a point for me where I enjoyed removing supports
that I was printing too much. Sort of like when we'd put Elmer's glue on our
hands just to pull it off after it dried back in school. :)

Post (or pre) support removal is an isopropyl or acetone (or other agent) bath
to remove any liquid surface resin and then a final UV curing.

I use an Anycubic curing station so that definitely speeds things up. To
process a full build plate from my EPAX X10 it takes upwards of five minutes
of my time [in terms of attention] (plus six minutes in the alcohol bath and
six minutes in the UV cure chamber, which are both unattended processes).

~~~
mrfusion
Interesting. How much faster is the print time vs fdm?

~~~
sydd
It really depends. an LCD resin printer prints a single layer at once, but it
prints much smaller layers than an FDM printer (resulting in better quality).
So for something small like a minifigure FDM will be faster, but for something
big (especially if it has lots of small features) resin is faster usually. And
resin prints are always more detailed.

------
gangstead
The article uses some confusing terminology. Almost all 3D printers use belts
to drive at least one axis. Creality is just making their version of a niche
style where the build plate is a conveyer belt instead.

~~~
janoc
Yeah, that ticked me off too. This is certainly not "belt driven" in the
normal sense.

------
leon_sbt
This is really interesting. In my opinion, Prusa is the best in class printer
to purchase for a turnkey machine. If you want to scale up a printfarm. Add
more Prusa's and some humans to tend them.

But there was never really a way to run the print farm lights out. As in queue
up the job for 7 days. Then have humans show up at the end of the week and
package ship orders.

If there was an OTS machine that could contend Prusa for production value per
dollar. This looks to be it. I'll be buying one of these when they are out.

For the patent comment, I think Stratasys has a patent on it, but one of the
claims is that the machine prints with orthogonal axes. Angle the print head
and now its good? [https://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/continuous-
build-3d-pr...](https://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/continuous-
build-3d-printer)

~~~
serf
I've played with belt systems similar to this.

It's great for high-volume small quick-to-print pieces. I would have loved to
have used such a system when I was printing first-response medical protective
gear early on during the pandemic; I needed high volume and the pieces were
small.

It _sucks_ for large pieces that require good bed adhesion.

A bit of background: A common problem with certain materials, like PETG, is
that the nozzle tends to weep. If that's the case, during a large print there
may be a buildup of plastic that offsets the nozzle a small amount. At the top
layers of the print, where leverage is the highest, if that offset on the
nozzle makes contact with the print, it's probably game-over. The
nozzle+offset will _probably_ knock the print off of the bed, destroying the
part.

I experienced two problems with a belt-bed system like this.

For one, bed adhesion is generally lower, so events like described above are
basically _never_ survived, whereas with a steel insert bed like a Prusa, the
part stays bonded to the work surface, but the offset may cause damage to the
top of the part, or the offset may contact it and be pushed aside, allowing a
healthy print or a negligibly damaged print, rather than a total failure.

Secondly : if you print anything complex, requiring thin or small support
structures or brims -- it's a good chance the brim or support material is
going to stay on the belt for the ride til the next lap. The system I used had
a brush that contacted the bed, but it wasn't enough. PETG brims would work
their way back up to the printing area, and be printed on top of. In most
cases, that's actually ok -- rarely is the bottom of a print important
aesthetically -- but if the work surface is offset by the thickness of the
brim, then it increases the likeliness that we'll experience the ooze/weep
offset described above, given that there is less clearance now for the nozzle
to stay away from it.

I think belt systems are the way forward, but I think they need to 1) offer
better and more consistent bed adherence; the system I used had 2 or 3 slick
spots that we avoided because things didn't like to stick, and 2) offer
absolute rigidity -- the belt system I got to play with felt like it'd likely
stretch over time and enough part removals.

~~~
leon_sbt
Great points you brought up! Only have experience with the Prusa's and it's
been great. I never operated the a belt bed printer.

It seems like another way to solve the problem is to stack hundreds of the
steel sheets in a magazine behind an i3 styled machined. When the print is
done, the Y axis goes all the way to front of the machine.

It will basically hit the steel sheet in a ramp and unload the sheet, through
the front of the machine. (In a clean under actuated robotic style). Move the
bed to the other extreme to reload a fresh plate. This would involve a machine
with more Y axis range of motion.

If you're familiar with CNC machine tools, this would operate similar to a
Brother Speedio Tool changer. Where the Z axis spindle motor actually indexes
the tool changer, when Z axis is high enough to engage the tool changer.

Regardless, I'm excited to see how both style machines solve the next stage of
lights out automation.

------
donmatito
No mention of involvment of realsexycyborg here? i'm not 100% sure of the
story but she's quite involved in the new design

[https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/130099753348578508...](https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/1300997533485785088)

~~~
imtringued
The Creality Ender 30 is based on the opensource White Knight 3D [0] printer
by NAK3DDesigns [1] though so why would you give her most of the credit?

[0] [https://github.com/NAK3DDesigns/White-
Knight](https://github.com/NAK3DDesigns/White-Knight)

[1]
[https://twitter.com/nak3ddesigns?lang=de](https://twitter.com/nak3ddesigns?lang=de)

~~~
donmatito
perhaps because he gives himself credit[0] ?

Or do you think industrializing a design is not valuable ?

[0]
[https://twitter.com/NAK3DDesigns/status/1303470020450750472](https://twitter.com/NAK3DDesigns/status/1303470020450750472)

------
defterGoose
It seems like an engineering mistake to have the nozzle canted in relation to
the bed. Bed adhesion and first layer quality is necessarily going to be
compromised. Additionally, the ability to achieve good surface finish on high
aspect ratio and rectilinear parts is reduced (at least without introducing a
material quantity penalty and previously-unnecessary support structures.)

Fight me.

------
antoniuschan99
FDM 3D Printing has some exciting innovations including Belt-Driven Beds, Non-
Planar, and 5-axis systems.

The quality of FDM is so high now and the price is so low. I really wanted to
go through the Injection Mold route at one point, but cost is just too high.
Average quote was $8,000 for the mold (small parts too) and each shot was ~$1.

Prints on FDM is already $0.75. It does take 1.5 hours to print the part
though, but there's no lead time and you are able to make incremental changes
to the part design.

FDM 3D printing vs Injection Mold feels like Hybrid Web App vs. Native App
Development. The FDM prints have that uncanny valley feel where it's 80-95%
there, but just not quite perfect (eg. layer lines, not high enough
resolution).

------
ChuckMcM
Full marks for thinking out of the box.

It will be interesting to watch. The claim "infinitely long" is rubbish of
course, you have to balance the rest of the object, so maybe a later add-on
for a 'catch ramp' of various lengths.

I'm curious how they hope to deal with alternative materials (PLA can do this
but good luck trying to get that to work with TGLASE or P90 or HDPE. Also
thinks like ABS that shrink and so a heated base is essential would be
challenging on a belt.

No matter what, if they get it into production it will advance the
understanding of the state of the art.

~~~
asddubs
infinitely long also wouldn't be possible since once the belt travels half its
length, the object would be fully released from it

------
cellular
Is there a slicer that can create g code to print in this angular fashion?

(So diy'ers could make one)?

I wonder what could be used for the belt? This structure actually looks easier
to build and seems more sturdy.

~~~
IgorPartola
It’s not a slicer problem but a firmware one. The slicer tells the printer
something like “G1 X30 Y10 E5” and it’s up to the printer firmware to figure
out how to move the X axis 30mm, the Y axis 10mm while extruding 5mm of
filament. Given the fact that the X kinematic here are identical to a bed
slinger, just with no end stops, Y and Z use kinematic similar to a CoreXY
setup, this shouldn’t take much at all. I guess this would be CoreYZ? Also,
this is Creality which uses Marlin for their firmware. Chances are we will see
this in Marlin in no time.

As far as ease of build, I suspect that’s not quite the case. The main thing I
would worry about is the belt flexing under the print head. If you think about
it, the nozzle only moves across the bed in a straight line, left to right. To
print an object with a Y dimension you need to move the belt forward and back
and depending on how you set up the line on which things are printed if there
is flex there you won’t get bed adhesion. You could use the treadmill belt
material coated with something that can be printed on. Or whatever belt sander
belts are made of before the abrasive is glued on.

~~~
xsmasher
That doesn't sound right; the slicer outputs paths, and the firmware isn't
going translate flat paths into diagonal paths.

The head can not travel in a plane parallel to the base plate, so it can't use
paths calculated for a regular flat primer.

------
unwind
Meta: please, mods, edit the title to remove the chevron and domain. Thanks.

------
cellular
Any idea how much this would cost? Ball park? I never bought a printer.

~~~
thrwn_frthr_awy
I would guess between $600-$800 USD. Keep in mind Creality printers are kits
so you do have to assemble them yourself. Not too difficult, but definitely a
learning curve on your first printer. YouTube and Reddit help a lot, though.

------
kevin_thibedeau
Isn't this patented by Stratasys?

~~~
Animats
BlackBelt 3D claims a pending patent, but a quick search didn't find it.

There's a few of these. [1] Creality's unit, with the triangular support
structure, looks more solid than the others.

This really reflects progress in printing materials. Printing at an angle
probably would not have worked with the filaments of a decade ago. Remember
the need for heated build plates, and a warmed environment around the printer?

[1] [https://youtu.be/E_RvnqVHbnA](https://youtu.be/E_RvnqVHbnA)

~~~
wanderingjew
Patent would be invalidated by prior art.

