Week05. 3D Scanning and printing¶
Group assignment¶
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.
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.
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.
We 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.
-
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 |
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¶
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.
As I mentioned earlier, the slicer software includes several useful calibration tests, one of which is the Temperature Tower (Temp Tower) test. It is designed to help determine the most suitable printing temperature for a specific filament.
In OrcaSlicer, to open this test I went to Calibration → Temperature, where a settings window appeared. There, I 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.
Temperature Tower¶
Before moving on to the testing phase, the tasks were divided between us. I 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.
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.
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.