As the first authoritative pieces we have provided a hexagon with 60-mm length and 8-mm key.
The wall strength of the parts was fixed to 0.8 mm.
Pressure parametre Makerbot:
- Resolution - 0.2 mm / 0.1 mm
- no Raft
- no support
- ABS with 235°C and 110°C heated pressure plate
- Pressure time - 1H 40 m
Pressure parametre Anycubic:
- Resolution - 0.1 mm
- Exposure time - 8see
- Break - 1see
- no Raft
- no support
- Pressure time - 3H 30 m
I have the Makerbot of printers many years ago, as one first in Germany acquired. In the first months, after Makerbot the printer on the US market brought an import, the payment of duty and the customer support was problematic a little bit, until a Stuttgart engineer's office began the distribution officially in Germany.
I still remember the quite level learning curve. At that time I have printed still with ReplicatorG and the Sailfish-proficient product provided by the community around the best Maßhaltigkeit to receive. Every parametre had to be tuned specially to the printer and the pressure piece and the amount in produced plastic garbage was quite high. There was support from the manufacturer, as well as from the distribution hardly.
Because Makerbot, therefore, many support inquiries received all support tickets became quite fast liable for costs.
Do you have a question to Makerbot? Costs 100$!
With before short acquired Anycubic photon I had less difficulties. The manufacturer comes directly from China, we have not put a support inquiry yet, why we have here no comparison. Above all the German operating instructions were astonishing. An assembly was not exact or similar like with the Makerbot necessarily.
As the first test we have printed abovementioned authoritative pieces, in each case two hexagonal recumbent and two standing.
Besides, there come the blue pressure pieces of the Makerbot and green from the Anycubic. The art out of vision parts on the left side became standing, on the right side recumbent printed.
In the upper picture are the recumbent printed models what one can recognise with the help of the surface of both FDM parts clearly, the horizontal layers are clearly visible here, above all because of the lower resolution of 0.2 mm instead of with the photon 0.1 mm used. Nevertheless, it was for us with this attempt about the overlayer.
With the SLA parts the surface is really smooth, nevertheless, the objects do not work like with the authoritative cube from a downpour. A reason which is why the pressure pieces irregularly look is owed to the next cleansing process. With the remove by washing of the parts in Ethanol I could not remove the staying behind resin in internal well, with the postprocessing some practise is asked.
With the standing printed parts on top in the picture we have changed the layer resolution with the Makerbot on 0.1 mm to be able to receive a comparative value. The surfaces look good on all pieces. It is striking here, that with the standing printed parts beside which to expected horizontal lines, with the pressure pieces from the photon also vertical lines are visible. I assume from the fact that this results of the fact that with the lines do not print with the photon between the Voxeln enough were exposed.
The first load tests were rather informative:
The horizontally oriented pressure pieces with the vertical layers of Makerbot were rather loadable, as expected, nevertheless, they of the photon have easily broken unexpectedly.
With the vertically oriented pressure pieces with horizontal layers it behaved exactly differently around, we could not break the parts produced by the photon without tools in spite of all power against which the pieces from the Makerbot broke rather easily.
To sum up, one can say that the pressure pieces from the Makerbot behaved as expected. Surface and loading capacity corresponded to the usual behaviour. Nevertheless, with the photon the Layerhaftung seems to function together better. The structural weakness which originates in my opinion from the areas between the Voxeln was quite astonishing. Here one more picture of the microscope:
The Skalierung of the pressure pieces was not adapted to receive a better comparison, and comes from the CAM software provided in each case with the default settings. The maximum divergences with the Makerbot:/-0.12 mm and with the Anycubic/-0.2 mm. Here takes a short-cut of the Makerbot with the standard parametres still clearly better.
To print with the new printer also exactly still a lot of work lies before us.
Up to the next contribution:)