@Dovid_Teitelbaum that is what autodesk did. I was trying to make sure you were not building that device.
I’m sure it could probably be done one way or the other, but I’m curious what the benefit would be? Choosing between frames doesn’t seem practical to me (I don’t get the point really). Dual extrusion on one big printer would seem more useful to me (the dual x-carriage bukobot comes to mind), but that’s just mho.
Would it have a common z axis, or independent beds/z?
@Dovid_Teitelbaum Just and FYI This would have the problem of any “Jerk” noise from printer 1 would be directly coupled to printer 2. If the frame is perfect. There is no reason it cant work. But you may end up inducing noise.
Secondly this would have to be a gantry style system. (IE no moving bed)
If you do those things it definitely can technically work.
http://makezine.com/2016/03/24/autodesk-introduces-mass-3d-printing-project-escher/
@Andreas_Wettergren This is not about dual extrusion. The only benefit im looking for here is flexible size with regard to build platform. I can breakup my platform to whatever sizes I want.
Thanks for input guys. I think there are two ways to do the Z axis. Would it be better to do it with one motor like the MPCNC, this will add mass or dual motors and belts which seems much more complicated?
As far as I am concerned, you are looking a corexy with a second core and set of pulleys and motors and instead of having the extruder motor on the moving core, you use the motr there for Z and do a bowden system. However you do it, I hope it works out. I must reiterate though that you do NOT want a cross beam setup. You want an H beam setup (corexy was decided by many to be a good adjustment to the hbot setup).
For jerk…yeah…just keep your acceleration low.
P