UltiMaker uses functional, analytical and tracking cookies. Tracking cookies enhance your experience on our website and may also collect your personal data outside of Ultimaker websites. If you agree with the use of tracking cookies, click “I agree, continue browsing”. You can withdraw your consent at any time. If you do not consent with the use of tracking cookies, click “Refuse”. You can find more information about cookies on our Privacy and Cookie Policy page.
I'm not directly someone involved with the material and hardware development, but I can tell you the rationale that i got from them.
Control really isn't an issue. We actually ran into the inverse; when working with 1.75 we had more issues with the speed at which we had to move the filament, especially if you really want to push the upper envelope. I don't quite see how the diameter would influence the surface finish that much though (if at all!). At the end of the line, it's still extruded from pretty much the same nozzle.
As far as materials that we directly support via the marketplace, I honestly don't think that there is a printer manufacturer that supports quite as many as we do. So although technically true, it feels a bit more like a theoretical differentiator.
When it comes to advantages, you listed most of them, but forgot a fairly important one; We already have a ton of experience with 2.85. So although it's possible to change, it would mean quite a bit of extra R&D work that we now didn't have to do. The 2.85mm also makes it a whole lot easier to print extremely flexible materials.
2.85mm allows you to better print flexible materials because it does not buckles as fast as 1.75mm (causing jams or print failures). A downside is that the minimum radius of the Bowden needs to be larger to prevent rigid materials to break. So we need some more headspace above our printheads (less compact).
2.85mm melts just as fast as 1.75mm for a given flowrate so there is no difference in maximum flow rate.
2.85mm oozes less because it is easier for the material or gass to move upwards (bigger diameter).
Material suppliers do not mind making 2.85mm. It requires less material to spool up, which is cheaper. Also the flow is more accurate because a diameter variation of 50um on a diameter of 1.75mm gives a much worse flow error than on a 2.85mm filament. And like Jaime said, we support a very large selection of materials.
2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
🚀 Help Shape the Future of Cura and Digital Factory – Join Our Power User Research Program!
We’re looking for active users of Cura and Digital Factory — across professional and educational use cases — to help us improve the next generation of our tools.
Our Power User Research Program kicks off with a quick 15-minute interview to learn about your setup and workflows. If selected, you’ll be invited into a small group of users who get early access to features and help us shape the future of 3D printing software.
🧪 What to Expect:
A short 15-minute kickoff interview to help us get to know you If selected, bi-monthly research sessions (15–30 minutes) where we’ll test features, review workflows, or gather feedback Occasional invites to try out early prototypes or vote on upcoming improvements
🎁 What You’ll Get:
Selected participants receive a free 1-year Studio or Classroom license Early access to new features and tools A direct voice in what we build next
👉 Interested? Please fill out this quick form
Your feedback helps us make Cura Cloud more powerful, more intuitive, and more aligned with how you actually print and manage your workflow.
Thanks for being part of the community,
The full stable release of Cura 5.10 has arrived, and it brings support for the new Ultimaker S8, as well as new materials and profiles for previously supported UltiMaker printers. Additionally, you can now control your models in Cura using a 3D SpaceMouse and more!
Recommended Posts
nallath 1,125
I'm not directly someone involved with the material and hardware development, but I can tell you the rationale that i got from them.
Control really isn't an issue. We actually ran into the inverse; when working with 1.75 we had more issues with the speed at which we had to move the filament, especially if you really want to push the upper envelope. I don't quite see how the diameter would influence the surface finish that much though (if at all!). At the end of the line, it's still extruded from pretty much the same nozzle.
As far as materials that we directly support via the marketplace, I honestly don't think that there is a printer manufacturer that supports quite as many as we do. So although technically true, it feels a bit more like a theoretical differentiator.
When it comes to advantages, you listed most of them, but forgot a fairly important one; We already have a ton of experience with 2.85. So although it's possible to change, it would mean quite a bit of extra R&D work that we now didn't have to do. The 2.85mm also makes it a whole lot easier to print extremely flexible materials.
Link to post
Share on other sites
pkuiper 2
2.85mm allows you to better print flexible materials because it does not buckles as fast as 1.75mm (causing jams or print failures). A downside is that the minimum radius of the Bowden needs to be larger to prevent rigid materials to break. So we need some more headspace above our printheads (less compact).
2.85mm melts just as fast as 1.75mm for a given flowrate so there is no difference in maximum flow rate.
2.85mm oozes less because it is easier for the material or gass to move upwards (bigger diameter).
Material suppliers do not mind making 2.85mm. It requires less material to spool up, which is cheaper. Also the flow is more accurate because a diameter variation of 50um on a diameter of 1.75mm gives a much worse flow error than on a 2.85mm filament. And like Jaime said, we support a very large selection of materials.
Link to post
Share on other sites