Bigger size Ultimaker 2+ clone

[gilbert 4]

Hello

Has anyone tried to build a bigger sized Ultimaker 2+ using the same mainboard and the same technology, but with a bigger bed?

Being a Ultimaker 2+ user for years it seems to me like an interesting idea.

Edited August 7, 2020 by gilbert

[Smithy 1,146]

Yes, Ultimaker did that with success with the S5 😁

 

sorry just kidding, but I guess you need much more modifications to get a bigger bed stable enough. Thicker axles, rods and so on. Just a modification with a bigger build plate should be doable, but to get the whole thing stable and sturdy is another challenge. But I have seen here in the forum one user who had such a DIY UM2 with bigger build size.

[gilbert 4]

Yes, the Ultimaker S5 is bigger, but it also has dual extrusion and so is more complex and expensive.

It all started as a discussion in my fablab. We use Ultimaker 2+ and 2+ Extended. The idea is to use as much as possible from these machines (because they just work fine) with "just" a bigger bed.

Of course a lot of the hardware has to be replaced, but it seems possible to keep the mainboard, the printhead and the feeder.

Has anyone tried this?

Edited August 7, 2020 by gilbert

[ahoeben 2,012]

If you have a substantially bigger buildplate, you need thicker axles through the printhead or your printhead will start to sag. So the printhead will have to be modified. This will make the gantry heavier, so there will be more torque on the belts of the gantry, so you will have to compensate a little for that too. A bigger bed will need a much beefier power supply to get to and maintain the temperature you need. The bigger buildplate will have a lot more flex, unless you compensate for that in the design of the bed.

[gilbert 4]

Thanks for the answer!

You're right, the top ("mechanical") part of the printhead has to be changed, but the bottom ("print") part can still be used.

The "XY machinery" needs rebuilding that's sure, and the same goes for the power supply.

As for the buildplate, there are available big size ones.

But I think the mainboard and the feeder can still be used.

I don't know much about the firmware, but I think the bed dimensions are just parameters that can be changed. Anyone knows?

 

 

[Dim3nsioneer 558]

I think what @fieldOfView described was essentially the process Ultimaker went through when designing the Ultimaker S5.

The electronics of the S5 are derived from designs that were originally on the Ultiboard of the Ultimaker 2+. The feeders are an improved version of the Ultimaker 2+ feeder (having a different lever and a filament sensor).

 

[gilbert 4]

I know that if I really need a "bigger Ultimaker 2+" I just should buy a Ultimaker S5.

Anyway, building a 3D printer is an interesting fablab team project, and that's what we're thinking about.

My (first) precise question is: if I use a Utimaker 2+ mainboard, is it possible to change only the bed size in its firmware?

[tinkergnome 927]

3 hours ago, gilbert said:

My (first) precise question is: if I use a Utimaker 2+ mainboard, is it possible to change only the bed size in its firmware?

 

Sure - building a well adapted firmware should be part of the team project anyway, shouldn't it?

The usual steps for this case are:

• download the firmware source files from https://github.com/Ultimaker/UM2.1-Firmware
• make your changes to Configuration.h
• compile a new *.hex file
• upload the new firmware to the printer

 

But you're not limited to the Ultimaker Marlin. One can use newer Marlin versions (or even a completely different firmware) that support more features (think of additional sensors, assisted leveling, filament detection and such stuff...)

Since you obviously have a team and a fablab at hand... let it grow and think bigger! 😁

 

[gilbert 4]

Thanks for the answer!

I've got it, the x, y and z dimensions are parameters that we can change.

We're only a small team. Changing the firmware itself is not part of our project. As I already said, the main point is that the firmware works fine. Some competent people have even improved it: I am testing something called Tinker on a Ultimaker 2+ and it works.

By the way, maybe you know about it, just in case we would use it on our bigger Ultimaker, I suppose Tinker uses the same configuration.h?

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by gilbert

[ahoeben 2,012]

1 hour ago, gilbert said:

I am testing something called Tinker on a Ultimaker 2+ and it works.

 

Hmmm, firmware named Tinker firmware ... A user named @tinkergnome... I wonder if there is a relation... 🤔

[Torgeir 280]

Hi gilbert,

 

You certainly talked with the right person. : 😉

 

Have a look here:

 

Torgeir.

[tinkergnome 927]

7 hours ago, gilbert said:

I am testing something called Tinker on a Ultimaker 2+ and it works.

 

In this case you can configure the build area in the preferences menu, without a need to build your own firmware.

One problem solved - time to struggle with the next one!

 

[gilbert 4]

I never wondered it would be so simple... I realize I just haven't explored all the Tinker menu options. So our (by now virtual) printer will use Tinker!

Just by curiosity, why did you provide this option? Does anyone use it?

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by gilbert

[tinkergnome 927]

6 hours ago, gilbert said:

Just by curiosity, why did you provide this option? Does anyone use it?

 

For example: there are hobbyists (and professionals) that use different hot-ends, fan shrouds, sensors, enclosures and similar things that may have an influence on the available build area.