Prusa Blog

>They're an excellent company, and the complete opposite of Bambu when it comes to Openness. not really -- but there ARE total open printers out there. voron and ratrig come to mind. prusa decided to change a lot of ethics once they became 'big'.[0] [0]: https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20…

This is from the prusa blog. RepRap started out originally as open source. https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20… It's worth noting that in 2022, Prusa had 0 patents assigned to them. https://www.fabbaloo.com/news/which-3d-print-company-has-the-most-pate…

https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20… highly recommend to read this first

The author starts out discussing licenses and by the fourth paragraph has jumped to the standard "I've never used a prusa, but here's why they suck" talking points and then at the end of the article even points out that the license talk has nothing to do with their assertions. > Prusa responded to this certainty by not diversifying their business model whatsoever. There has only ever been one Prusa product: their latest 3D printer model. https://blog.prusa3d.com/prusa-pro-our-industrial-product-line-at-form… https://blog.prusa3d.com/printables-store_87810/ https://blog.prusa3d.com/printables-clubs-are-live-you-can-now-support… https://blog.prusa3d.com/trilabs-industrial-3d-printers-one-year-later… These are just the first few pages of their blog, I could go on. > Or, you can buy an Ender 3 off Amazon right now for $180 and you’ll get better than half of the value of an Mk4 at an 85% discount. It's difficult to assume that the author is communicating in good faith when one reads something as obviously wrong as this. If you can't spot the difference between a Ender 3 and an MK4, you shouldn't be writing about 3d printers. > Prusa’s naive strategy is causing their position to fall like a rock. Are Prusa's financials available somewhere that I'm not aware of? They seem to be doing fine considering they can't make printers fast enough to keep up with demand.

I think that's just how prints from a transparent filament usually look like, at least in my experience. What looks like under-extrusion are just bubbles of air. You can print with transparent filament (mostly) without bubbles, but it's much more tricky, see e.g. https://blog.prusa3d.com/3d-printed-lens-and-other-transparent-objects…

> You still need a prime tower when switching tool heads, but that is significantly less than a full purge. But I believe the INDX has the same restriction. INDX no longer needs a tower. They say there is 13 milligrams of waste (which they call less than a grain of rice) on each filament change. So a print with 1,000 changes wastes 13 grams of filament. Details: https://blog.prusa3d.com/prusa-core-one-indx-orders-now-open_134915/

Prusa is still the most 'open source-ish' choice, but they're no longer a polar opposite to Bambu, in 2023 they started making efforts to stop commercialization of their designs, stopped sharing source/design material for their PCBs, etc. Then in 2025 they changed their 'open community license' to say users may not: “Sell complete machines or remixes based on these files, unless you have a separate agreement…” and “The Restriction: You cannot commercially exploit the design files…” https://blog.prusa3d.com/core-one-cad-files-release-under-the-new-open… Maybe this is more a comment on how open source has had to change in the face of commercial exploitation of the vulnerabilities traditional open source licenses create for the businesses doing the R&D.

More context: https://blog.prusa3d.com/core-one-cad-files-release-under-the-new-open… To me it's another L from Prusa, and I'm tired of people continuing to abuse the phrase "open" for things that are not.

It's cool that you support plotters. I don't have a plotter, but I DO have a 3D printer, and those can also do some pretty cool 2D visualizations. There's a good ecosystem for Lithophanes [0][1] and maps [2][3]. This would be a cool addition to that. [0] https://all3dp.com/2/how-to-3d-print-your-own-lithophane/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU13fzqAu4BTAhOSHJgHRqg [2] https://blog.prusa3d.com/how-to-print-maps-terrains-and-landscapes-on-… [3] https://map2stl.com/

Official release blog post: https://blog.prusa3d.com/introducing-prusa-core-one-fully-enclosed-cor…

You're quite correct about the Lack. They're cheap as hell (15 bucks at time of writing?), but as a result quite manipulatable, such as creating 3d printer enclosures [0]. You can see some of their insides as they go through the process. [0] https://blog.prusa3d.com/mmu2s-printer-enclosure_30215/

Jo wrote an entire blogpost about it: https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20… One of the big takeaways from this for me is that Jo doesn't really understand IP law. He talks about wanting a new license for open source hardware; the trouble with that is that a copyright license does not and cannot protect a hardware design. That's what patents do. That's not a defense of current IP law, just a statement on the reality of what it is.

> Armin's claim that Bambu is making companies reconsider open source, is not at all substantiated I cannot say what is or is not making companies reconsider, but Prusa is on the record about their struggles: https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20…

FWIW, Prusa has released the first alpha version of a new firmware update for the Mini+ that adds input shaping and increases the speed of the machine substantially. https://blog.prusa3d.com/original-prusa-printers-now-printing-at-20000…

Prusa has made a similar statement regarding their open source 3D printers. A lot of cheap knock offs leveraging their work … https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20…

>Well we don’t really know that an accelerometer is needed for input shaping for a nozzle that is only accelerating across a single plane. Input shaping requires an accelerometer for calibration. On a bedslinger like the Mk4, you need two sets of measurements - one for the toolhead and one for the bed, because both are moving and both can experience different resonances. The Prusa solution is to pre-calibrate input shaping from the factory; this is less than ideal, because printer resonances can be substantially affected by the surface that the printer is sitting on. The user could re-calibrate input shaping, but that would require them to connect their own accelerometer module to the motherboard and find some means of jury-rigging it in place. https://blog.prusa3d.com/announcing-original-prusa-mk4_76585/#inputsha…

> Prusa are trying to make an open source hardware company work and I guess this is what it looks like. https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20… sure sounds like they no longer intend to be an "open source hardware company". For example: > Parts that can be considered consumables (e.g., thermistors, heater blocks, fans, printing plates, etc.) can be manufactured and sold commercially after the verification by the licensor based on the presentation of samples. That is very much against the concept of open source.

I don't think that's quite correct, according to Prusa, the XL has started shipping to customers two weeks ago, though presumably still in low numbers: https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20… I'm not super happy about the wait myself, but the XL is a considerably more complex beast, and I'd rather see them getting it right than sacrificing quality to meeting some self imposed deadline.

They also just published a blog post[0] discussing the hardware equivalent of SSPL if I get it correctly. 0: https://blog.prusa3d.com/the-state-of-open-source-in-3d-printing-in-20…

The announcement article says people who bought a Mk3S within the last month will receive a voucher for $150 or $200 which could be put towards the upgrade kit (or, I assume, filament etc). https://blog.prusa3d.com/announcing-original-prusa-mk4_76585/

Prusa did a whole article about 3D printing optics some time ago[0]. I've also had good luck coating transparent filaments with epoxy resin to get clear parts. [0]https://blog.prusa3d.com/3d-printed-lens-and-other-transparent-objects…

It works fine and lots of people do it, I have been using mine without issue for a few years now. It helps to put a concrete slab in it, but it's not necessary. The lack table does have a tendency to amplify the noise though. Here is a guide by Prusa to build one for their printers: https://blog.prusa3d.com/mmu2s-printer-enclosure_30215/

> and the fact that it doesn't remove assembly as a manufacturing step Prusa is working on a Pick & Place Toolhead for the Prusa XL to enable at least some very specific assembly steps to be done on this 3D printer: > https://blog.prusa3d.com/xl-in-2026-new-toolheads-lower-price_129707/ "One Print, Multiple Components: Pick & Place Tool Some technical prints require additional components, such as magnets, threaded inserts, or bearings, to be placed during the build. Without automation, this typically means you have to pause the print and insert the part(s) by hand. Although PrusaSlicer made this process easier a while ago, The Pick & Place toolhead can do it for you, completely autonomously. This reduces manual intervention and improves placement accuracy. We’ve co-developed the toolhead with the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) and it’s designed for models that combine 3D-printed models with off-the-shelf components. We’re currently targeting late 2026 with its implementation."