Exploring the Future of 3D Printing: IDEX for Magneto X?

Any update on this idex project? Want to purchase for idex capability but need some proof of concept that shows this will become reality

I’m a design engineer regularly using 3D-printing at work for prototypes as well as at home for all types of things. The Magneto X would be a good replacement for my Tenlog tl-d3 pro if it would be upgraded with IDEX.

For me IDEX is mostly used to gain functionality by printing materials with two different properties, e.g. soft and hard, solid and light transmitting, non-conductive and conductive. Two different colors are fun but seen as secondary functionality.

Printing in double or mirror mode have so far never been needed for me, if I need more models I can just restart a new print after the first is done since I don’t print 24/7.

I often print quite big so I hope you really try to fit as large printing volume as possible with IDEX. Compared to your prototype you could rotate your fans 90° and have the nozzels in as assymetrical position on the print heads to get more printing volume.
It would also be good if the IDEX solution could be quickly disassembled to temporarily have larger printing volume to the cost of no IDEX for that print.

Other than that I think user Quebecois_Sti described it well.

Just to give you a bit of context of who I am: I am an Automated Engineer and an Ultimaker S5 material station with filter user at work and an old Prusa i3 at home. I am looking for quite a bit on a new machine (at home) and especially a good IDEX one since I’ve worked with the S5. I am looking around, comparing and checking right now the J1S and the Marathon but now I am pretty happy to see Peopoly are looking into IDEX recently because I tend to like the Open Source approach and the linear motor that others aren’t looking into and still stay in the belt loosing market.

Here’s my input on what should be integrated/looked into regarding the IDEX:
- easy to remove the whole 2nd extruder off the gantry or having a parking space for it that won’t bother the build volume (when needing whole platform for bigger parts) or having a wider frame that won’t affect anything
- PVA/soluble/dissolvable/breakaway material is a mandatory one that should work flawlessly with it. Soluble material was a game changer on some parts I’ve done at work but that material is tricky a bit (nozzle must be perfectly clean and the cone inside must be pretty good), need constant drying and have to go slower a bit. Moreover, I wasn’t able to make it work at larger diameter than 0.40mm nozzle which is kinda bad for larger part that I wished to do with 0.6 and even 0.8mm. Sometimes you want to print big parts that doesn’t need to be so pretty, draft quality with overall good dimensions are way more than enough.
- Copy, Mirror and Support material mode should be integrated with the extruders: copy/mirror means the 2nd extruder is away from the first (printing multiple same part or left/right part and support mode means it’s right next to the first extruder and ready to print support material (switch in between)
- Calibration between first and 2nd extruder must be a quick process and ideally without user input (i don’t mind the sheet system at all like the S5 but I think other way exist nowadays that don’t involve user input like how the J1S is doing it with their center square system that seems to be pretty nice)
- The calibration of both extruders with the bed must be taken in consideration since it’s a bit hard mechanically to be perfect on both extruders in relation with the bed. You don’t really want to adjust the bed all the time with the head (backlash) but rather adjust Z of the extruder themselves like what the S5 do with his 2nd extruder head (a latch makes the extruder move a bit)
- Sometimes less user input the better: if a sensor and/or software/algorithm can do it, why rely on someone for doing it ? It’s not only time lost for the user but is the person want a “just works” or “thinker printer” and in the end if you design correctly you may end up way better not relying on human input
- Printing with material support is often linked with engineered material so implementing an active chamber could be quite better for adhesion, warping and needed to have good quality
- Profiles, profiles, profiles! Standard profiles that works (a good baseline that you don’t need to tweak that much to get overall decent prints) especially with material you know people want and will print: PLA, PETG, TPU, CF, ABS, PVA, Breakaway. Draft/General/Engineer-Functional/Esthetics oriented are good baseline in my POV. I was glad that when I become in charge of the S5 at work, all the learning I’ve been trough with my Prusa i3 help me quite alot to tweaks and understand flaws of the S5 or the prints done with it. The S5 is no way a perfect printer and the proprietary design/OS/hardware and the cost is kinda non sense for what it is (I didn’t choose that printer for work BTW, it was a Corporate decision). However, it is more towards disposable way of thinking: the nozzle assembly is not responsive correctly or you have hard time cleaning it or just don’t want spending 30min or so ? No worry, just buy the 150$ package nozzle and swap it right away, click and voilà! Yes it’s nice and easy in an office environment but very costly and doesn’t make sense. The overall printer cost is absurd as well considering what it is.

Hopefully it would help you in a way. Regards from Eastern Canada.

This is definitely the right route to take on a technical filament printer. Being able to use a low cost support material is a huge factor in printing costs and considering everything they are already including it would be a perfect addition. Next I would think of a method to heat and control the temperature inside the chamber and you would be in the top tier.

Whether it’s dual extrusion, true IDEX, or a multi-filament system, printing in 2 materials is critical for the tools I print for work. I’d love to retire my S5 and go with a Magneto X but single filament printing is a deal-breaker for me, as is a <300mm bed.

Would love an IDEX set up. An add on or even a larger version that has a more room for the duel heads would be interesting for sure. The throughput increase of having an IDEX set up is amazing… combine that with how fast the Magneto already is, production times for large jobs would plummet.

Idex is cool, but only the start with your motion system, imagine dual Idex or even Triple Tridex. I know it sound crazy, but imagine a Printer that can do large mult material prints and act as 9 Printers…

I agree with Json on the idea that a tool-changer would be the better solution. As an alternative, the second head should be detachable to profit from the entire build-area when it is needed.

Reply to Zach regarding: “Idex for dual materials is the only application keeping my old slow printer around! Would glady retire that one and have a dual material capable magnetox! A second gantry sounds like a very intriguing way to implement it although more development time may be needed for that.”

Hi Zach, Thank you for your feedback! Implementing a second gantry is indeed a fascinating idea and could offer great benefits. We’ll consider this, even if it means additional development time.

Reply to Brandon regarding: “Yes, I think idex is really cool. I think it would’ve worked better if your tool head rail ran along the longer access because with it on the short side if you want to do mirror mode, you’ll probably only get like 140mm at most for each part"

Hi Brandon, Thank you for your feedback. We understand the concern about the limited space for mirror mode with the current tool head rail orientation. We’ll consider this in our design improvements to maximize the build area for dual printing modes.

Reply to Bizzo regarding: “Idex would be extremely cool and help a lot with printing objects that require support even as you implement it above. I want to point out though that your system makes it possible to instead run 2 gantries with one extruder on each gantry. This could open up some very unique scenarios. For example you could feasibly print two totally different parts on the bed at the same time with some caveats on layer completion timing. Implementing Idex the way I describe would also not have the weight penalty of an additional extruder on a single gantry so print speeds should be unaffected. You have a lot more room on one axis so the area you would lose to the gantry is mitigated. I love seeing you reach out to the community and wish the team luck with this.”

Hi Bizzo, Thank you for your insightful feedback. Running two gantries with one extruder each is an excellent idea, enabling unique scenarios like printing two different parts simultaneously without the weight penalty. We’ll certainly consider this approach to maintain print speeds and maximize the build area.

We appreciate your support and wish you the best with your projects!

Reply to ant regarding: “IDEX would be very useful for improving prints that require supports since you can use an easy to remove filament. IDEX could also help with speeding up filament changes in multi color or multi material prints by performing them between toolhead swaps. Belt driven IDEX require very good tuning skills to make them perform identically especially in a CoreXY style kinematic so using simple Cartesian kinematic with linear motor precision should be a lot easier to setup and keep tuned. IDEX is a differentiator for 3d printers"

Hi ant, Thank you for your detailed feedback. We agree that IDEX would greatly enhance support removal and streamline filament changes in multi-color or multi-material prints. The simplicity of Cartesian kinematics combined with our linear motor precision should indeed make setup and tuning easier compared to belt-driven systems.

We’re excited about the potential this upgrade holds for differentiating the Magneto X.

Reply to Kerbeus regarding: “I have been hoping for a Magneto X IDEX solution right from the start. Magneto is currently being tested in our print farm and IDEX is what we are missing. We need to print complex geometries with soluble or easily removable supports that provide perfect surface finish on the supported area. I have been working on our own IDEX implementation for Voron and other printers we built internaly. We would be willing to alpha/betta test, provide input etc.”

Hi Kerbeus, Thank you for your enthusiasm and support! We’re thrilled to hear that the Magneto X is already a part of your print farm. Your experience with IDEX implementations and willingness to alpha/beta test and provide input are invaluable to us.

We’ll keep you updated on our progress and look forward to collaborating with you

Idex is good, but a multi head tool changer with multiple heads would be a lot better. You wouldn’t give up any travel in the Y axis, just the X which would be a better tradeoff.

Idex for dual materials is the only application keeping my old slow printer around! Would glady retire that one and have a dual material capable magnetox! A second gantry sounds like a very intriguing way to implement it although more development time may be needed for that.

Yes, I think idex is really cool. I think it would’ve worked better if your tool head rail ran along the longer access because with it on the short side if you want to do mirror mode, you’ll probably only get like 140mm at most for each part

Idex would be extremely cool and help a lot with printing objects that require support even as you implement it above. I want to point out though that your system makes it possible to instead run 2 gantries with one extruder on each gantry. This could open up some very unique scenarios. For example you could feasibly print two totally different parts on the bed at the same time with some caveats on layer completion timing. Implementing Idex the way I describe would also not have the weight penalty of an additional extruder on a single gantry so print speeds should be unaffected. You have a lot more room on one axis so the area you would lose to the gantry is mitigated. I love seeing you reach out to the community and wish the team luck with this.

IDEX would be very useful for improving prints that require supports since you can use an easy to remove filament. IDEX could also help with speeding up filament changes in multi color or multi material prints by performing them between toolhead swaps. Belt driven IDEX require very good tuning skills to make them perform identically especially in a CoreXY style kinematic so using simple Cartesian kinematic with linear motor precision should be a lot easier to setup and keep tuned. IDEX is a differentiator for 3d printers

I have been hoping for a Magneto X IDEX solution right from the start. Magneto is currently being tested in our print farm and IDEX is what we are missing. We need to print complex geometries with soluble or easily removable supports that provide perfect surface finish on the supported area. I have been working on our own IDEX implementation for Voron and other printers we built internaly. We would be willing to alpha/betta test, provide input etc.