For those who do not yet know, MakerGear just released a new printer named the M3. Highlights are “true leveling”, wireless, special variant of OctoPrint, a new cooling system, and up to 3 year warranty with 1 year at the base tier. Price starts at $2,350 or for an IDEX setup price starts at $2,999, both require $1,000 deposit for preorder. Not posting this as an advertisement, in fact I think except for the IDEX setup the rest of the improvements aren’t that great. Check the link for more details.
https://www.makergear.com/pages/m3
I have mixed feelings about creating a buzzword for it, but I like the idea of including “true leveling” (aka NOT having “auto-leveling”) as a feature and a selling point.
I am, as always, appalled by the inaccurate use of the term “leveling”, though.
I don’t see anything new about it. We got a M2, it’s pretty good, but I don’t like the extruder and hotend. Moving bed isn’t my favorite thing either, but it was probably the easiest to set up and the most repeatable printer I’ve used.
@Whosa_whatsis we picked the term “Active leveling”, not for marketing reasons, but because we didn’t think “automatic bed leveling” was correct. We’re not automatically leveling the bed. We are adjusting to compensate for the bed. “actively adjusting for the bed”
“True leveling” I cannot find explained what it means. Other then they have a trademark on it…
@Daid_Braam My objection continues to be that “leveling” is an inaccurate term for any of these things, and because of this inaccurate language, I still, on an almost daily basis, encounter people suggesting that a spirit level should be used for the job.
“True leveling” is their term for an automated procedure that assists the user in manually tramming the platform.
So, it’s assisted bed leveling. Like the UM2 already did? Or actually telling how many rotations the screws need?
And in my understanding leveling is the proper term. You are putting it level with the XY motion frame. You could use a spirit level, if you also use that to level your XY motion frame with the earth. But I could be wrong here, due to non-native English speaker.
It isn’t the proper term. It is arguably a proper term (remember, English is a language with lots of words that mean similar things), but this usage does not correspond to the way the term is normally used, and is in fact in conflict with it. It is the most popular term, but it is also the most misleading.
“Tramming” is a less common word, but is far less ambiguous.
“Paralleling” isn’t even a real word, but it is the most descriptive, and despite not being a real word, it is actually the most likely of the three to be correctly understood, and the least likely to be misunderstood. “Aligning” is probably pretty good too, but isn’t as unambiguous as “paralleling”. The Beauty of “paralleling” is that if you don’t know what it means, it forces you to ask “parallel to what?” instead of making a bad assumption, which is the whole point.
And no, I don’t think a spirit level is precise enough that you can level the motion axes, level the bed, and expect the two to to be sufficiently parallel, at least not for larger printers, and this method also wouldn’t solve the nozzle height problem.
I prefer “bed tilt compensation” for schemes that adjust Z height to match the bed. And I prefer “tramming” for the process of making the bed parallel to the XY axes. Anything else is either ambiguous or misleading.
I think customers appreciate plain language that communicates a plainly understood point, not forcing them into the weeds. The motive of “autoleveling” and other similar terms is to explain that you don’t have to manually adjust the bed w your hands. It’s not marketing, it’s explaining a convenience. I guess I could use “fancy-software-feature-that-compensates-for-the-bed” but “autoleveling” communicates the spirit of the thing. The real question is: do customers understand the convenience? And I think in most cases they do. There is a lot of cumbersome vernacular to 3d printing and I’m a proponent of easing the need for a glossary of terms. I don’t assume any ill intent from manufacturers or marketers. Accuracy by engineering standards isn’t always the best choice in my book. Strong opinions divide, and could even turn away customers. 3d printing users (or even more broadly, technology users) rarely understand the gory details of what is happening. They just know if they want it and like using it. It feels like magic, so I’m happy for people to believe it’s magic. No, it’s not actually magic, I get it. But maybe you see my point.
Brook
What about “precision cooling”?
I could not find any details or a close-up on that