5. 3D Scanning and printing

Group assignment

• Test the design rules for your 3D printer(s)
• Document your work on the group work page and reflect on your individual page what you learned about characteristics of your printers.

During the group assignment, our goal was to evaluate and compare the capabilities of the 3D printers available in the lab. Using the same models, we tested each machine to observe print quality, dimensional accuracy, surface finish, and overall stability.

We focused on identifying the strengths and limitations of each printer by analyzing temperature stability, layer adhesion, extrusion consistency, and print speed. Using identical files and controlled parameters enabled a fair comparison and provided a clearer understanding of each machine’s performance.

Ani and Gevorg at Gyumri’s lab worked with the Prusa MK4S and Bambu Lab X1 Carbon 3D printers, using identical test models on both machines to compare their performance and print quality.

The experiments were carried out using two different materials: PLA and PETG. I worked with PLA, while Gevorg used PETG, which allowed us to compare not only the performance of the printers but also the behavior of the materials under the same conditions.

• Prusa MK4S – FDM printer with a medium build volume of 250×210×210 mm, single extruder, and heated bed. Supports PLA, PETG, ASA, TPU, and some nylon materials.

• Bambu Lab X1 Carbon – FDM printer with a build volume of 220×220×250 mm, single extruder (up to 4 with AMS), heated bed, supports PLA, PETG, ABS, ASA, PC, TPU, and high-temperature materials. Designed for fast, versatile printing.

Feature	Prusa MK4S	Bambu Lab X1 Carbon
Image
Mechanics & Frame Type	Cartesian, open-frame	CoreXY, enclosed frame
Print Volume (mm)	250×210×220	256×256×256
Extruder Type	Single direct drive (Nextruder)	Single all-metal hotend
Heated Chamber	No	No
Max Nozzle Temp (°C)	290	300
Max Bed Temp (°C)	120	110–120
Auto-Leveling	Yes	Yes (dual + lidar)
Supported Materials	PLA, PETG, Flex, PVA, PC, PP, CPE, PVB	PLA, PETG, TPU, ABS, ASA, PC, PA, specialty composites
Firmware / Control	Prusa firmware	Bambu Studio
Special Features	Reliable all-purpose printer	Fast, advanced sensors & AMS-ready

---

Mariam and Hrach at Dilijan’s lab worked on Elegoo Neptune 4 Max and Creality Ender 3KE. Tests were done both on PETG and PLA.

Feature	Creality Ender 3KE	Elegoo Neptune 4 Max
Image
Print Volume (mm)	220×220×240	420×420×480
Extruder Type	Direct Drive	Direct Drive
Heated Chamber	No	No
Max Nozzle Temp (°C)	300	300
Max Bed Temp (°C)	100	85
Auto-leveling	Yes	Yes
Firmware	Klipper	Klipper
Special Features	Reliable all-purpose printer	Large-format, high-speed

---

Saad at Abu Dhabi lab worked on Bambulab X1C and Dremel 3D54 printers. Meterial: PLA.

BambuLab X1 Carbon	Specification
Image
Nozzle Diameter	0.4 mm
Filament Diameter	1.75 mm
Dimensions	389389457 mm3
Max Speed of Tool Head	500 mm/s
Max Acceleration of Tool Head	20 m/s2
Build Volume	256256256 mm3
Max Cutting Depth	8-9mm
Supported Filament	PLA, PETG, TPU, ABS, ASA, PET, PA, PC, Carbon/Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
Bambu Micro Lidar	Yes
Chamber Monitoring Camera	1920 x 1080 Included
Door Sensor	Yes
Filament Run Out Sensor	Yes
Filament Odometry	Optional with AMS
Power Loss Recover	Yes
Max Build Plate Temperature	110 @220 V, 120 @110 V
Max Hot End Flow	32 mm3/s @ABS (Model: 150 x 150 mm single wall Material: Bambu ABS; Temperature: 280

Dremel 3D45	Image

And Giga and Dato from Georgia used printers Bambulab X1C and Anycubic Vyper to test and compare. Materials used: PETG, PLA.

Student	Printer	Image	Nozzle	Slicer
Giga	Bambu Lab X1 Carbon		0.4 mm	OrcaSlicer
Dato	Anycubic Vyper		0.4 mm	OrcaSlicer

Testing

As part of the group assignment for the 3D printing week, Gevorg and I decided to test the printers available in our lab in order to evaluate their capabilities, characteristics, and print quality.

We began with the preparation phase. For model slicing, we used the OrcaSlicer software, where we first configured the temperature tower test. This test allowed us to examine the effect of different temperatures on material melting, layer adhesion, and surface quality.

During printing, we used PLA and PETG materials with the same test models to obtain comparable results. The experiments included:

• evaluating temperature stability,

• assessing the performance of the extruder and print bed,

• checking tolerances and dimensional accuracy,

• analyzing surface quality at different printing speeds.

This process enabled us to gain a comparative and more objective understanding of each printer’s performance, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and observe how different machines respond to the same materials and parameters.

Slicer

The slicer software we used includes several calibration tools, the first of which was the Temperature Tower test. The purpose of this test is to determine the optimal nozzle temperature for a given filament. During printing, each section of the tower is produced at a different temperature, enabling visual and structural evaluation to identify the temperature that provides the best overall printing results.

For preparing 3D models and calibrating the printers in our project, we could have used various slicers, such as PrusaSlicer, but we chose Orca Slicer. This slicer provides fast and convenient tools for configuring print parameters, allowing precise control over layer height, infill, print speed, temperature, and other critical settings.

Orca Slicer stands out for its simplicity in preparing models and its precise adjustment capabilities. It enables quick verification of parameters, easy modification, and immediate visualization of changes without the need for repeated trial prints. This efficiency is especially important for our project, where both time and workflow optimization are key factors.

Additionally, Orca Slicer offers clear and intuitive controls, ensuring a well-managed and consistent printing process that helps achieve high-quality results. While other slicers are also powerful, Orca Slicer provided the best combination of speed, accuracy, and simplicity, making it particularly suitable for our project’s requirements.

Temperature Tower

Before moving on to the testing phase, the tasks were divided between us. Ani chose to work with PLA filament, while Gevorg worked with PETG, which allowed us to comparatively analyze the printing behavior and optimal parameters of different materials.

In OrcaSlicer, to open this test:

Calibration → Temperature, where a settings window appeared.

Test by Ani and Gevorg on Prusa MK4S

Then selected the filament type — PLA, and set the nozzle temperature range as follows

starting temperature: 240 °C,

final temperature: 190 °C,

temperature step: 5 °C.

After generating the Temp Tower, the model was automatically placed on the print bed. Each section of the model is printed at a different temperature.

With this test, it is possible to evaluate the results of various temperatures in a single print and select the option that provides the best surface quality, layer adhesion, and overall print performance.

When we change the Line Type parameter in the program and select Temperature, the model is displayed as a multicolored tower, with colors gradually transitioning from cool tones to warm tones. On the right side of the screen, a color scale is shown, indicating the temperature corresponding to each color.

This is the result of the temperature tower test.

Each section of the model was printed at a different temperature, ranging from 190°C to 240°C. By comparing the quality of each segment — such as surface finish, layer adhesion, stringing, and overall sharpness — we can determine the optimal printing temperature for this filament.

In the temperature tower test (190°C–240°C), the best print quality was achieved around 210°C–215°C.

At lower temperatures (190°C–200°C), the layers appear slightly under-extruded and layer adhesion is weaker. At higher temperatures (230°C–240°C), there are visible signs of stringing and slight surface imperfections due to overheating.

The sections printed at 210°C–215°C show the cleanest surface finish, better layer bonding, and minimal stringing. Therefore, this temperature range can be considered optimal for this filament.

This experiment was an important step, as it helped me better understand the material’s behavior at different temperatures.

Result by Mariam on Neptune 4 Max

• PETG

• 210°C - 260°C

Short conclusion

The temperature tower is a tall model printed in separate sections at different temperatures (in 5°C increments). In this example, it can be seen that PETG printed best in the temperature range of 220°C to 250°C.

Max Flow Rate Test

After the Temperature Tower test, the next step was to evaluate the maximum flow rate (Max Flow Rate). The purpose of this test was to determine the highest volumetric flow (mm³/s) that the printer can sustain with PLA filament without compromising print quality.

Mariam performed the Max Flowrate test for both PLA and PETG filaments.Neptune 4 Max

Ani and Gevorg tested on Prusa MK4S using two different PLA colors:

• Red PLA

• Vanilla White PLA

Procedure

In Orca Slicer, Ani selected the Max Flow Rate calibration section. The software automatically suggests a default speed of 200 mm/s,

but this value is only a general recommendation and does not account for the specific printer, nozzle, or filament properties. The slicer generated a model in which extrusion demand gradually increased throughout the print. During printing, the following were monitored:

• surface consistency

• layer adhesion

• signs of under-extrusion

• gaps between lines

• structural deviations

For clarity, we created an image that shows how much of the model was printed successfully. The maximum acceptable flow rate was calculated using the following formula:

Flow = start + (measured height × step)

Observations

Test by Ani and Gevorg on Prusa MK4S

At lower flow rates, extrusion was stable, walls were solid, and surface quality was clean for both filaments. However, after the 8th line, differences became noticeable:

• Red PLA — small gaps appeared in the top layers, indicating the flow limit had been exceeded.

• Vanilla White PLA — only slight deviations in line straightness appeared, without gaps or adhesion issues.

The calculated maximum flow rate was determined as:

5+(0.5×8)=9 mm3/s

where:

• 5 mm³/s is the starting flow rate

• 0.5 mm³/s is the increment per step

• 8 is the number of steps completed before quality degradation appeared

Although the software suggested a default value of 200, our calculations showed that the correct maximum flow rate is 9 mm³/s. Therefore, the slicer setting was adjusted to 9, as this proved to be the optimal value for this specific material.

Conclusion

The Max Flow Rate test identified the real-world stable extrusion limits for this printer and PLA materials:

• 9 mm³/s — stable upper limit

• higher values — noticeable quality loss

• different PLA colors behave differently under identical conditions

These findings are important for printing faster while maintaining quality, improving print reliability, and optimizing future print parameters.

Result by Mariam on Neptune 4 Max

Short conclusion

Max Flowrate Test measures how much plastic the hotend can melt and extrude per second.

For PETG, the optimal printing range is 5–12 mm³/s, while for PLA, the optimal range is 5–10 mm³/s.

All in one test

Mariamalso performed the Mini All-in-One 3D Printer Test. This test refers to a compact 3D model designed to evaluate a printer’s performance across multiple parameters in a single, quick print.

The model was downloaded from an online source, and I would like to thank the designers for making it available.

Here are the results.

short conclusion

• Overhangs: The printer handled slopes up to 60° well, with minimal support needed.

• Bridging: Horizontal spans were printed successfully without significant issues.

• Tolerances: Dimensional accuracy was within acceptable limits for most features.

• Stringing: Minimal stringing observed, indicating good retraction settings.

• Thin Walls: The printer struggled with very thin walls, showing some deformation.

---

Last update: February 24, 2026