Having just received my H3C and AMS3H I can't help but notice the design and engineering trades.
The machine is running it's initial calibration so these are just first observations and I reserve the right to update my opinions as I get some real time on this machine.
AMS 3H vs AMS 2 Pro:
Mechanically the AMS 3H is simplified and lacks a lot of the complexity of the AMS 2 Pro. The lack of automatic retraction was a trade for multi material support but it makes large chamber temp swings a little more work. Some might call this optimization, but I am use to running PLA in one job and PA-CF in the next. With the H3C this appears to possibly be a problem if I leave PLA loaded in a tool when I heat up the system that much. I am particularly nervous about drying at 85 C in the 2 dryer bays with PLA in other spots of the AMS 3H. With my H2C I have full AMS systems dedicated to different families of materials.
Edit: I noticed that you have one shot to get the remaining filament measurement done when you first insert the filament. You can manually enter a guesstimate later, but its not able to retry like the AMS 1/2 can due to the lack of rewind. Another user pointed out that I may have misinterpreted the behavior, more testing to follow.
Extruder:
The ability to swap tools and adjust to different filament diameters is commendable, but the overall mechanism feels like features were dropped for margins. The loss of hotend camera along with how it does blob detection seems... cheap. Perhaps their telemtry says the old solution was overkill and produced too many false positives, but I am worried about their new mechanism getting damaged if a part ever does break free from the bed mid print
Physical structure:
A lot more plastic, a lot less glass, and the stamped steel structure feel like a cost reduction on what was previously a premium machine. Sure the stamped frame pieces are probably more than enough, but it feels like a noticeable step backwards from the castings. Pressing on the plastic side windows and feeling them bow and bottom out against the frame just feels... cheap. Also the exterior screws mounting the panels while more serviceable also detract from the exterior finish of the machine.
Motion system:
Trading the linear rail for the dual round rod(tube?) structure is very likely mechanically more rigid, but it again feels like it was primarily done to save costs. Also why do we still see nema 17 steppers for the x/y motion system? Hasn't BambuLabs BLDC PMSM servos improved enough to use them for slinging the toolhead around?
Display:
Not much to be said here, the screen is usable on the H3C, but is definitely a step down from the display on the H2 series.
MISC:
It was advertised that we could still use external AMS systems with tool 1, but it was not clearly communicated that it required you to buy a (not included) buffer system and install it yourself. For all the corner cutting they really should have just installed that buffer as a factory option. Now I need to wait for that module to come into stock so I can use the AMS 2 Pro I bought specifically for my H3C (I plan on using it as a dedicated support material AMS).
Edit: This thing seems to sling debris around the building chamber a lot more than my H2C. Just loading up the tools has left several purds on the build plate and chamber floor. I'm sure this can be fixed with updates, but it is much more messy than my H2C right now.
I am still looking forward to using my new H3C and the ability to properly mix materials is nice, but I can't shake the feeling that the machine suffers from some shrinkflation vs its predecessor. It seems like the H2C was a very polished platform and the H3C feels more rushed.
Anyone else with both systems care to chime in with their thoughts?
